Bob, > Bob Hinden wrote: > I figured it would be hypocritical for me to run NAT at home > and work on IPv6 in the IETF
I don't think so. I am not ashamed of running IPv4 NAT at home and working on IPv6; it's a matter of money. > so I was willing to pay a bit more money. If not indiscrete, how many IPv4 addresses and how much $$$ are we talking about? Given the number of hosts I have on my home setup (I need a /27) the only realistic option I have to run NAT-free is to bring in a T1 (as no reliable residential broadband provider is willing to give me a /27), which still is $500/mo (local loop + transit) instead of the $49/mo I am paying for my aDSL. I'm sorry, but this is a car payment for a Mercedes-Benz, and unless someone on the list is willing to fork out $450/mo I will stick with NAT. The number of addresses will not be an issue with IPv6, but this not why people would use IPv6 NAT if given a working box. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
