Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
frnkblk at iname.com
Sat Jan 15 18:21:52 CST 2011
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.
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
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
> Brandon Ross AIM:
> Skype: brandonross Yahoo:
More information about the NANOG