Bob,

>> Margaret Wasserwan wrote:
>> In my opinion, the only way that we will stop people from
>> using NAT (with or without IPv6 site-local addresses) will
>> be to provider better (architecturally cleaner, more
>> convenient, more functional) mechanisms for people to get
>> the same benefits that they get from NATs today. Although
>> NATs may have started as a response to address space
>> shortage, today their use is driven by the needs for
>> provider-independent addressing and convenient access
>> control.  So, we need to work on better ways to provide
>> those things in IPv6.

> Bob Hinden wrote:
> I am not sure that this is really true.  When I was looking
> for a new DSL provider I found that in many cases I could get
> service> at a specific bandwidth with a singe address for about
> $60 a month. If I wanted a /29 instead, it would cost about
> $30 more a month. 50% more for 6 usable addresses!

I vote with my wallet and this kind of ISP does not have my business.
It's weird you are out of PacBell's reach in bay area.

Pacbell's prices are $49.95 for one dynamic IP and $64.95 for a /29.
Frankly I would not mind paying $15/mo more to have a /29 and I don't
think it is an unreasonable price. [this is not a free add for Pacbell;
their email stinks].
As always market will decide.


That being said, I don't see how this applies to IPv6. Given the fact
that lots of people are giving away /48 tunnels, and that a single IPv4
address also brings a 6to4 /48 prefix, I don't think that there is any
relation between the scarcity of IPv6 addresses and the development of
IPv6 NAT. 

Which leaves us with the main motive behind the development of IPv6 NAT
being the desire for provider independant addresses.

Michel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to