> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Neuijen, S.M.J.G.
> Sent: dinsdag 19 september 2000 17:33
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: (NAT) IPv6 and NAT
>
>
> > I happen to think that ISPs will charge a premium for
> multiple and/or
> stable
> > v6 addresses because that is the status quo and because the
> market will
> bear
> > it. Thus, I suspect that NAT will remain quite active
> if/when IPv6 is
> > deployed.
>
> Maybe they wan't do that anymore when their competitors offer the same
> service for free, and why wouldn't they? IPv6 addresses, as
> opposed to ipv4
> addresses, are NOT a scarse resource!
>
> So only one "FREE ISP" has to make the move.....
>
Agree, but /48 IPv6 subnets can be allocated many times more than IPv4
address are currently available. However /48 subnets for my home network
would allow me to even connect all the bricks to the Internet (by matter of
speaking), I think Free ISPs don't have to complain about someone allocating
a /48 subnet or maybe smaller ones.
Some simple calculations indicate ISPs can allocate many more clients if
they only have /72 or /80 subnet. And give clients /48 subnets.
So ISPs should actually not complain about giving you no subnet....
At least this is my opinion.
Also this ensure end-to-end communication for even my refrigerator (not that
it will that soon). Also it's more likely people get dedicted Internet
connections, I think, like ADSL and Cable. We have seen that NAT was a
mistake on the Internet. (I'm convinced about it now).
I think the implementation of this over phone lines is not likely to happen
suddenly (you don't have your modem online for 24 hours).
> Saskia
- Joris
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
