Tim Hartrick wrote: > All, > > > > > You pay your provider per traffic volume or bandwidth. Not per IP > > address. At least non I know of. They will give you as much addresses > > you need. Now if you still want to put the globally unique addresses
> > behind a NAT, you are free to. But it's a bad idea. The addresses given > > to you from your provider are not private. > > > > I know of almost no US providers that don't currently charge > for IPv4 address space. Enduser ISP's will always charge for extra IP space as it's currently not customary to give an enduser more than 1 IP. Also IPv4 is a becoming a 'scarce' resource. > Absent some regulation, there is no reason to believe that > they will stop charging for IPv6 address space no matter > how freely the bits are made available to them. > It would be great if ISPs would charge for bandwidth > only but that simply isn't the way the world currently works > and there is absolutely nothing about IPv6 that will change that. > More bits in the address don't mean diddly if the only way to > get the bits is through an oligarchy of ISPs. If the ISP doesn't provide /48's to an endsite, other ISP's will have the advantage that they do. Also if the ISP doesn't they are going against RFC's. You might also realize that the current TLA policy for RIR's demands that you have 200 prospect clients. That is 200x /48. Aka 200 endusers on DSL will suffice for them. Currently even most tunnelbroker system endusers get a /48 and in some cases even more. And they are not even paying for bandwidth nor for ipspace. Go figure ;) Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
