On Wed, 16 May 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to
> give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home?
>
> This is very much related to the ISP discussion here a week or two ago; if
> ISP is allowed to assign /128, they probably will.
We need NATv6, in order to guarantee that ISPs will make address space
available. Here's why.
There is some debate between the optimists who argue that address space
will be so large and plentiful that ISPs will just hand out /48's to each
customer in accordance with IESG recommendations, and the pessimists who
argue that ISPs will charge extra for anything they can, and will continue
to charge much $$ for address space because that is the situation with
IPv4.
In the end, the optimists will prevail, for the simple reason of market
competition. Not ISPs competing with ISPs, however, but ISPs competing
with home-router vendors. The plethora of $100 NAT boxes on the market is
ample proof that NAT can work just fine for the average consumer, and at
the same time is impossible for ISPs to restrict.
The NAT manufacturers want ISPs to continue to be stingy with their IP
addresses so they can continue to sell home/SOHO routers, and thus will
continue to advertise "Why pay for more than one IP?". On the other hand,
the ISPs want to stop NAT use so they can accurately price their service
based on expected usage. I would venture to guess that the ISPs will
eventually realize that they can't charge more for additional IP addresses
because they'll simply drive their customers behind NATs, so they'll
start utilitizing large address allocations as an extra service "perk".
After a time, this perk will become a standard feature of any ISP service.
The odd conclusion of this argument is that we *need* NAT for IPv6, just
to keep the ISPs in check. If the IETF takes any measures to make NATv6
infeasible, the IPv4 pricing paradigm will continue, regardless of how
available address space becomes. -Nathan
--
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------------+
| Nathan Lutchansky | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Lithium Technologies |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| I dread success. To have succeeded is to have finished one's |
| business on earth... I like a state of continual becoming, |
| with a goal in front and not behind. - George Bernard Shaw |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
