"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|You don't have NAT and you are not going to write yourself. Forget it.
I write tcp/ip stacks and associated drivers for a living. Some of my OEM
customers use these components to build NAT products. I assure you that if
I want v6 NAT I will have it. Even if I don't want it I will probably have it.
The way things are going, it looks like everyone will have it. If they have
v6 at all.
|> There seems to be a persistent notion that ISPs are going to
|> change their business models just because the IP header
|> version field increases by 2. I don't buy it. Show me proof.
|
|The IID is 64 bits, please read the addressing architecture draft. Same
|as a v4 ISP could not give you less than ONE IPv4 address, a v6 ISP can
|not give you less than ONE /64.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Many ISPs run their networks as big bridged
segments. They can and they will use a single /64 for such segments,
allocating customer addresses out of that chunk on a pay-per-address basis.
It could even be argued (and I'm sure they will argue) that this is the most
natural arrangement: what was a single v4 subnet will become a single v6 subnet.
Dialup providers will almost certainly use a /128 because that is the closest
to what they are doing now. It doesn't matter what a draft (or any other
document) says. Such papers are not binding on ISPs. Remember, many ISPs use
addresses as a substitute for bandwidth. That's why some of them are so hot to
detect and eliminate v4 NAT.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
