Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Mon Apr 19 15:01:25 UTC 2010

> * Nick Hilliard:
> 
> > On 19/04/2010 16:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> >> The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to do
> >> so [...]
> 
> > Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a natted
> > eyeball network?  The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with could
> > never figure out which aspect of NAT hurt more: the technical side or the
> > business side.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the acceptance of NAT varies regionally.  I think
> there's a large ISP in Italy which has been doing NAT since the 90s.
> So it's not just the mobile domain.
> 
> It can be tricky to introduce a new NATted product and compete with
> established players which do not NAT, though.

It's another opportunity to monetize things.  Give people the option of
a "real" IP address for $5 extra a month in case they actually need it
for gaming, etc., and default Grandma's average everyday connection to 
NAT.

The eyeball ISP's definitely have the easier end of things.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.