On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware doesn't support it."
I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for a static prefix, though. And that's technically possible.
Unfortunate, but, true. Fortunately, I don't have that problem. I got my addresses elsewhere for less. ($100/year from ARIN is less than $120/year from your ISP.) Owen
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Smith [mailto:nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:30 PM To: Brandon Ross Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST) Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will probably be implemented for IPv6:
You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain. Service providers will continue to assign only a single IP address to residential users unless they pay an additional fee for additional addresses.
How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a single IPv6 address?
Since many residential users won't stand for an additional fee, pressure will be placed on CPE vendors to include v6 PAT in their devices.
-- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss