Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
Mark Smith
nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Sat Jan 15 23:30:00 UTC 2011
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>
> > Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will
> > probably be implemented for IPv6:
>
> You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain.
> Service providers will continue to assign only a single IP address to
> residential users unless they pay an additional fee for additional
> addresses.
How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out
there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a
single IPv6 address?
> Since many residential users won't stand for an additional
> fee, pressure will be placed on CPE vendors to include v6 PAT in their
> devices.
>
> --
> Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss
> ICQ: 2269442
> Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list