Hi,
On Jul 14, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) wrote:
I of course share the worry that the operators will start charging
differently different size end-user allocations.
I strongly suspect they will since many ISPs have already
incorporated address space charges into their business models. I
would imagine ISPs continue to look for any way they can add optional
charges to your monthly bill so they can legally advertise low
connectivities fees.
However, I feel there
is little we can do about the in the IETF and therefore I would see
that
we should not use too much time on this.
I would agree. The IETF hasn't, to my knowledge, been particularly
effective in limiting business models.
I think the only practical thing we can do is to advice that the
end-user network will have enough addresses to satisfy its
communication
needs to avoid the introduction of e.g. NAT into IPv6 networks.
I would suggest that NATv6 will be created and exist as long as there
is a significant (at least perceived) cost to transitioning service
providers.
Rgds,
-drc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
