On 10/2/07, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:

...

At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT, eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.

#1 has been partially mitigated by NAT, and perhaps only temporarily.

The last chapter of that book is yet to be written.

John, I hated NAT when back when it was called "circuit level proxying," and I still do. Give me a packet filter any day. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that a huge number of installations have NAT dead center in their network security policies. Asking them to deploy IPv6 without NAT is asking them to refactor long held security policies as a -prerequisite- to using IPv6. And without IPv6 PI for all, asking them to give up NAT is also asking them to give up the best tool they have to mitigate the cost of changing ISPs. Both of those so they can spend lots of time and money deploying a protocol which offers them what exactly? I hope you see the problem here. On 10/2/07, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:

Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user allocations.

Seth, You still pay the up-front but you pay only one annual fee. For an end user (i.e. PI space) that would have been $100 anyway. Where it makes a difference is for service providers: they pay a lot more than $100/yr but won't pay any more for the IPv6 addresses. Given that the SOHO and hobbyist users don't qualify for IPv6 PI addresses, the fact that its difficult for them to afford those addresses is moot. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004