Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Brandon Ross <bross () pobox com>]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011, Mark Smith wrote:

> 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?

Huh?  Who said anything about 100%?  It would take only a single 
reasonably sized provider that has a monopoly in a particular area (tell 
me that doesn't happen) or a pair of them that have a duopoly (almost 
everywhere in the US) and you instantly have huge incentive for someone to 
write some v6 PAT code.

Believe me, I'm the last person who wants to see this happen.  It's a 
horrible, moronic, bone-headed situation.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure 
it's going to happen because it's been the status quo for so long, and 
because some marketing dweeb will make the case that the provider is 
leaving revenue on the table because there will always be some customers 
who aren't clever enough to use NAT and will buy the upgraded "5 pack" 
service.

--
Brandon Ross                                              AIM:  BrandonNRoss
                                                               ICQ:  2269442
                                   Skype:  brandonross  Yahoo:  BrandonNRoss