Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |As for the other consequences of 6to4, the main one will be to raise
|> |expectations. 6to4 enables a user to derive an IPv6 prefix from a
|single
|> |global IPv4 address. Many solutions will be using this capability,
|e.g.
|> |providing global addresses to multiple devices, or using multiple
|> |addresses for different functions within a single computer. This
|imply
|> |that the "native v6" ISP will be expected to provide users with a
|> |prefix, not a single host address -- otherwise, the native v6
|solution
|> |will be perceived as inferior to the existing 6to4 solution.
|>
|> Yes, and that's going to annoy the ISP no end.
|
|Uh, I don't perceive IPv6 as a tool to annoy the ISPs.
I didn't say it was. In fact, I'm sure some ISPs see IPv6 as a great tool
to extract more money from end users by replacing NAT'ed addresses with
countable v6 addresses. :) What will annoy ISPs is the perception (caused
by 6to4) that an entire prefix should be the norm. As you observed.
|ISPs are selling
|a product that users use to run applications and get services. ISP
|services compare in terms of how many applications you can run
|(transparency), how fast (bandwidth), how reliably, how easily and at
|what price. The price and the offer are mostly determined by cost and
|competition; the cost depends largely on the underlying technology, how
|easy it is to manage, how many support calls do we expect from users,
|etc.
I think that might be a bit of an oversimplification...
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
