Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:12:26 -0500
Jim Gettys <jg () freedesktop org> wrote:

> On 01/15/2011 06:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Can we *please* stop this pointless thread?

I don't think it pointless to network operators - NAT or not has
operational impacts on troubleshooting, network design, addressing plans
etc. I understand you aren't a network operator, so if you're not
interested perhaps you should unsubscribe.

Thanks,
Mark.