Curtis Doty wrote: [..]
It would be sad if one of the leaders in deploying IPv6 was now motivated to maintain the status-quo; with its IPv4 RST meddling "feature". :-(
Which "Leaders in deploying IPv6"? They are only deploying IPv6 for their management infrastructure, thus internally and not for their customers. Just to show how 'deployed' it is: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/arin/ Prefix: 2001:558::/32 Name: COMCAST6NET Allocated: 2003-01-06 Seen: *NEVER* That stuff is the same PR crap as Verizon with: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYTU05725092007-1.ht... Note the: "The deployment, expected to be completed during the next 18 months, will permit companies to fully integrate to IPv6,..." Nice PR, but no cheese yet, but at least now they are pretty much committed to actually do it ;) Really, don't claim that something is deploying IPv6 until you see "IPv6" as a feature on the product pages and you can actually really get it and traceroute it globally... As for the RST's, this just shows again that things like IPSEC or otherwise protected packet sending are the way to go and ISP's show not be stating that you have "unlimited traffic" but simply provide the user with a real limit. Then it is clear what you are buying and when you go over that limit THEN limit the endpoint to 5kbit/s so that they at least can go to the "you reached your limit, do your leeching next month". And I am pretty sure that technically simply ratelimitting (or simply shutting them down completely or sending them to a sandbox) after they hit the traffic limit is much more efficient than trying to figure out what is and what is not "illegal" or "bulky" traffic. It is only complicating the wee job that an ISP really have to do: gain nothing. Greets, Jeroen