Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Tue Apr 20 03:32:14 UTC 2010

Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <4BCD14EF.8090204 at zill.net>, Patrick Giagnocavo writes:
>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> In message <201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459 at aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes:
>>>> I haven't seen any such documents or regulations.
>>> People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would
>>> get a Internet address.  A address behind a NAT is not a Internet
>>> address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different
>>> thing.
>> Given that many ISPs put their sign-up documents, including contracts,
>> on-line, you can no doubt supply a link to such a document that has
>> legal terms that would preclude NATed service, yes?
>>
>> My recollection is only that I would be provided with "Internet service"
>> or "access to the Internet" .  No mention of RFC1918 space or other
>> distinguishing information was given.
>>
>> Note in the below blurb no mention of publicly routable addresses...
> 
> It doesn't have to as the normal definition of a Internet address
> is a publically routable internet address.  A address behind a NAT
> is not a Internet address (Big I Internet).
> 

(hope the attribution is not screwed up)

*ANY* valid Internet Protocol address is an "IP address" as mentioned in
the contract I quoted.  Including 192.168.99.2 .

> If you supply something less than a full blown Internet access you
> need to point out the restriction otherwise I would expect you to
> be subject to "Bait and Switch" and other consumer protection laws.
> 

You are charmingly naive about how "the law" actually works in the USA -
that is IMHO.

In any case, I left the large amount of quotes in to show that I (and
possibly Joe) are asking you for specific examples to support your
argument - and all you are offering is more of your personal opinion,
which is not an objective source of support for your position.

If I want that, I can go to any of *.livejournal.com, *.blogger.com , etc.

--Patrick