On Wed, 16 May 2001, lists wrote:
> > 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)
Heh. OK, so if the registries all agree that giving each customer a /48
whether they want it or not is a good use of address space, then I'm sure
that's the path the ISPs will take. But as Dan Lanciani points out, ISPs
could easily filter out (2^48 - n) IP addresses in your /48, where n is
proportional to your monthly bill. Regardless of how it is enforced, it
is a question of whether the restriction exists at all.
> > 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).
I agree that NAT breaks a lot of things. But I still maintain that the
software will always kludge around it, even if that takes a very ugly
kludge. In particular, SIP has a lot of workarounds for NATs and other
firewalls, and I would expect that many of the future end-to-end killer
apps will be based on it. -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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
