Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
owen at delong.com
Sat Jan 15 19:19:46 CST 2011
On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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?
I've talked to a lot of them...
None of the ones I've talked to have any plans to assign less than a /64
to an end-user.
Hopefully the ones that are planning on less than a /48 will come to their
More information about the NANOG