On 2010-05-29 03:01, David Conrad wrote: > On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global >> address sharing. > > An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the > "other form of global address sharing" part, since single NAT is address > sharing. Do you have any data?
Sorry, I should have written "subscribers" instead of "users". Most subscribers get global addresses on the outside of their domestic gateway, but of course that gateway is unfortunately a NAT in most cases. >>> IPv4 free pool runout simply means connecting to the Internet is going to >>> get more expensive. >> No, it means it is going to require double NAT unless providers deploy IPv6. > > I've been told on numerous occasions that multi-layer NAT will significantly > increase opex. Yes. It will also significantly increase breakage at application level. I understand there is plenty of running code proof of this, for example in India. > >> That is the message that needs to be got across. > > I suspect your message will result in a response of "Double whasis? I can > still get my pr0n, right?". I'd imagine a message that says "you're going to > end up paying more for your pr0n" will get more people's attention. In fact I think the message now should be to content *providers*, because they will bear the costs unless they pressure their ISPs into doing the right thing. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
