> Do you think ISPs are charging for address space because it is limited?
No, I think ISPs are charging for address space because we have taken away the alternative of letting customers get routable address space of their own. That doesn't mean that I disagree with the decision to encourage address aggregation, just that there might be some undesirable consequences of that decision even if it was the best thing to do. Realistically, routing table space and updates and computation are, with current technology, finite or even scarce resources. It's hard to believe that sooner or later this wouldn't cost something, though perhaps not as much as it does now. Keith p.s. perhaps somebody would like to explain why my ISP tries to impose NAT and RFC 1918 addresses on its DSL customers even though the addresses on the other side of the DSL modem are globals, and even though the DSL modems they ship won't talk to more than one Ethernet address between power cycles? it's not helping any (hypothetical or otherwise) address shortage, and it's not providing any security benefit to their customers. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
