NAT would definitely serve a purpose for those wishing to not pay a fee for Intert addresseable address space. It would seem though that if one pays for Internet access this should in fact be included in the price.
"Evstiounin, Mikhail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wasn't avoiding NAT one of the goal of IPv6? I recall a pretty bigAT would d3efinet
discussion here some time ago about NAT and IPv6.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakers, Jason [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:41 AM
> To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will
> see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
> today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices
> within (one street address can house many people, not just one).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis Glatting
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 ! AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
> >
> >
> > I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's
> plenary
> > and arrived at two philosophical questions.
> >
> > I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of
> > my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo.
> fee
> > for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this
> fee
> > but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I
> > believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the
> > fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided.
> > Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the
> > conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh!
>! >
> > If we look at today's marketing hype and think for ward a bit there is a
> > thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and
> > stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is
> > whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g.,
> monthly)
> > drop coins in the ARIN fountain?
> >
> > Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (<1024) is tight. Using the
> > same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve
> port
> > space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as
> > protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly
> > becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model?
> >
> > Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use
> of
> > port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
