On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > David Conrad wrote: > > > > Welcome to NATv6. > > It's our job to stop that happening. > > Also, the vast majority of Internet users are not in the least > possessive about their IP address; it's different every time they > connect. Those who are possessive are those who run services of one > kind or another. It's our job to make that possible without forcing > them down the NAThole.
And of course the ones who run services of one kind or another would be in the vast majority in an IPv6 world, rather than the vast minority. I think NATv6 is inevitable, because some site policy makers will demand it. Our "job" is to provide a well-engineered alternative that the market will demand. If enough ISP's provide v6 services the right way, the market demand for those services will mean NATv6 will be naturally stunted in adoption. If ISP X enables me to control and view three IPv6 enabled webcams, a secure home filestore, program my tivo/vcr, monitor home appliances, etc, all in a relatively plug-and-play way, and ISP Y does not, because it uses NATv6, then it's highly likely ISP X will flourish and ISP Y will fail... Likewise ISP's offering static /48's will probably flourish over those that do not (and certainly over those that offer only /64's). Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
