Re: Creating demand for IPv6

["William Herrin" <herrin-nanog () dirtside com>]

On 10/2/07, John Curran <jcurran () mail com> wrote:
> > At the customer level, #1 has been thoroughly mitigated by NAT,
> > eliminating demand. Indeed, the lack of IPv6 NAT creates a negative
> > demand: folks used to NAT don't want to give it up.
>
> #1 has been partially mitigated by NAT, and perhaps only temporarily.
>
> The last chapter of that book is yet to be written.

John,

I hated NAT when back when it was called "circuit level proxying," and
I still do. Give me a packet filter any day. But that doesn't matter.

What matters is that a huge number of installations have NAT dead
center in their network security policies. Asking them to deploy IPv6
without NAT is asking them to refactor long held security policies as
a -prerequisite- to using IPv6.

And without IPv6 PI for all, asking them to give up NAT is also asking
them to give up the best tool they have to mitigate the cost of
changing ISPs.

Both of those so they can spend lots of time and money deploying a
protocol which offers them what exactly? I hope you see the problem
here.



On 10/2/07, Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us> wrote:
> Really? As far as I understood it, I still had to pay $500 for end-user
> allocations.

Seth,

You still pay the up-front but you pay only one annual fee. For an end
user (i.e. PI space) that would have been $100 anyway. Where it makes
a difference is for service providers: they pay a lot more than
$100/yr but won't pay any more for the IPv6 addresses.

Given that the SOHO and hobbyist users don't qualify for IPv6 PI
addresses, the fact that its difficult for them to afford those
addresses is moot.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin                  herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004