On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 21:24:00 -0700 Ted Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ted, > On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Joseph Hyunwook Cha wrote: > > However, if the service provider provides DHCPv6 service for the > > internet connectivity of customer's hosts and is willing to give > > only /128 addresses without delegating prefixes, there are no other > > feasible solutions than 6to6 NAPT for of local hosts to share the > > Internet connection. To address this problem, new element called > > DHCPv6 proxy agent is suggested, which supports message transactions > > between hosts in the LAN and remote server in the provider network > > using IAID demultiplexing. > <snip> > Personally, I think that if ISPs in general start giving out /128s, we > have pretty much wasted the effort of creating IPv6, because we'll > effectively have an IPv4 network, only with substantially bigger > protocol headers. > I think the market will sort that out pretty quickly. If an ISP chooses only to give out /128s, then another ISP can use the huge amount and low cost IPv6 address space they have to create a competitive advantage over the first ISP. I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but ISPs down here in .au are well aware that their customers are typically connecting multiple devices behind NAT, because the ISPs themselves are selling NAPT enabled by default ADSL routers to their customers. If they're offering VoIP services, they're also probably quite aware of the problems NAT creates. I think there is a chance that they'll be more open to the idea of customers having multiple public addresses or subnets once the address space itself is cheap and plentiful. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
