Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

Sun Jan 16 01:27:07 UTC 2011

On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk
> that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address.  "Our hardware
> doesn't support it."
> 
> I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for a static prefix,
> though.  And that's technically possible.
> 
Unfortunate, but, true. Fortunately, I don't have that problem. I got my addresses
elsewhere for less. ($100/year from ARIN is less than $120/year from your
ISP.)

Owen

> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Smith
> [mailto:nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:30 PM
> To: Brandon Ross
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> 