Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> AT&T used to charge for any telephone color other than black, even
> though the cost of producing a telephone was the same no matter what
> color it was.
> though the cost of producing a telephone was the same no matter what
> color it was.
AT&T also used to charge for additional private IP addresses. I remember one company had a bussiness package with them and was also leasing a router that came locked down and configured to use 192.168.0.0/27 on the LAN. When this company wanted more IP's internally AT&T wanted to charge them more to "upgrade" them to a 192.168.0.0/24
----------------
John-
I agree that no IPv6 solution involving customers giving up the (percieved?) freedom of NAT for a construct that has them suckling from their ISP's tit again is really going to go over well.
One small note also about the ISP supplied modem - at least in my experience in Los Angeles - the basic modems I've seen act solely as a pass-through (they have no configuration menus -etc). I know today modem/home networking in a box devices are being pushed (because the ISP's charge extra for it), but the basic end user is getting no bells and whistles -(at least with SBC, Verizon, and Comcast).
FWIW-(which isn't much), IMO people like NAT because it lets them do what they want without paying more or getting permission. Cause I think thats really all they want from any solution.
nick
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
