Keep selling them the NAT router, just don't tell them that it applies only to IPv4 only and not to IPv6. 99.9% of consumers don't know about NAT, they just want to plug it in and be connected. That's why having a stateful firewall as standard element of an IPv6-capable router specification would keep SOHO IPv6 connectivity "on par" with IPv4. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Akyol, Bora A [mailto:bora@pnl.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:54 PM To: Owen DeLong; matthew@matthew.at Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/"firewall" in place is a security feature, I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box. In all reality, NAT boxes do work for 99% of customers out there. Bora On 7/22/10 7:34 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote: Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to make NAT66 unnecessary? Owen