> 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.
ISP fees for additional addresses just leveraging an opportunity to extract a few more dollars. The opportunity stems out of: 1) a notion of leased addresses, i.e. addresses have to be returned back when a customer leaves ISP 2) a percieved scarcity of IPv4 addresses. Overall it goes all the way back to IANA allocation policy preserving the internet hierarchy. In theory IPv6 provides enough addresses for everyone. How to make sure that addresses are not wasted? Immediate answer - get addresses through your LIR. Apparently quite a lot of people would want to become LIR for themselves. At some point we may start considering e.g. UN sponsored IP address registrars allocating x-amount of IP addresses to each individual and establishment on the planet and managing such allocation. Peter Sherbin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. > > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
