Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> 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.
Unfortunate, but, true. Fortunately, I don't have that problem. I got my addresses
elsewhere for less. ($100/year from ARIN is less than $120/year from your
ISP.)


Owen

> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Smith
> [mailto:nanog () 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 () 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 
> > addresses.
>
> 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 
> > devices.
> >
> > -- 
> > Brandon Ross                                              AIM:
> BrandonNRoss
> >                                                                ICQ:
> 2269442
> >                                    Skype:  brandonross  Yahoo:
> BrandonNRoss
> >