> 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.
Except that it's cheaper for the ISP to hand out /48's than to have billing
for 2 or more separate sized IP blocks -- as long as getting additional blocks
from the RIR is "easy". Stop thinking as if you're still caught in an economy
of scarcity...(grin)
> 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
We also expect that NAT won't work for the next wave of killer apps as it
doesn't preserve end-to-end semantics. So your argument is half right on as
long as the usage of the internet is restricted to current applications (ie.
the web as an alternative to TV).
Adi
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
