"Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|> NO - Do NOT Deprecate Site-Local Addressing.
|>
|> There are reason to use site-locals, and reason NOT to use them. But
|> "FORBIDDING" people will only alienate them and lead them to
|> find ways to do it anyway.
|>
|> Perfect example, when (or should I say IF) my home ISP goes
|> to IPv6, they charge per IP. Always have, and always will.
|> Sure, they will gladly give me a range of IPs, as well as
|> gladly charge me as if each were a PC. Also,
|> when I get tired of putting up with the abuse from this
|> particular ISP and decide to choose another ISP to abuse me,
|> I will still have the same issue.
|
|Very good example that you don't get it at all.
|ISP's should be charging for traffic, not for IP's.
So why don't you make the ISPs work the way you think they should?
Then NAT would go away and you wouldn't have to try to ban it. NAT
is the effect, not the cause.
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
