Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Mon Apr 19 15:00:27 UTC 2010

On 2010-04-19, at 10:51, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * 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.

I haven't been a customer of an ISP in New Zealand for a long time now, but people there tell me that there is an expectation of NAT when you sign up for DSL service. Nobody normally expects to be handed a globally-unique v4 address.

Joe