Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> And, when I conclude that IPv6 is inevitable (unless someone comes >>> up with another scheme for global unique addresses RSN), >> >> Here we disagree, I don't think that IPv6 is inevitable. >> When I model the pressures on the various parties in the >> system and consider the shortest route by which the >> participants can reach their short term goals there are >> certainly alternative schemes. >> >> I certainly do not want to see these schemes deployed but >> they are certainly possible outcomes. For example, a >> hyperNAT where the ISP NATs residential Internet as a matter >> of course. I suspect we will start to see this deployed on a >> large scale as soon as the market price for IP address >> allocation reaches a particular point. >> >> There is a major difference between a NAT box plugged into >> the real Internet and a NAT box plugged into another NAT >> box. It is a pretty ugly one for the residential user.
I'm afraid it is already happening on a large scale in some parts. Here in Australia I've seen multiple ISP's who NAT all residential customers. Some of them amongst the largest players in the market. Even some commercial offerings are on NATs. Personally I'm more set against the wholesale blocking of ports and services which ISPs seem to be favouring at the moment, and the pricing that is applied to have the blocks removed. There are artificial blocks being deployed to keep usage down that are a bigger problem than NATs IMHO. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
