On Feb 13, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <000901cbcb22$3cf978a0$b6ec69e0$@org>, "Lee Howard" writes:
-----Original Message----- From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bosch@adacore.com]
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter
Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway. In many markets, they don't. Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer to swap routers. And find the capital to pay for them. And have a system for updating the firmware and configurations of those devices. Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new gateway, when the one they have is still functioning, and might even be brand new.
the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6.
Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address, or record unique visitors by IP address. It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that you'd panic.
And a lot of that depends upon how you implement LSN. * LSN per pop or a uber mega LSN? * How many customers per address? 2 or 200?
Most LSNs will probably be regional collections of LSN boxes that are (somewhat randomly) load balanced. Owen