On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mark Andrews <mark_andr...@isc.org> wrote:
> > In message <20090205030522.13d152b2...@mx5.roble.com>, Roger Marquis > writes: > > Mark Andrews wrote: > > > All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get > > > the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be > > > renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a > > > different set of addresses at that point. You should plan > > > accordingly. > > > > Exactly the problem, and the reason A) IPv6 is not and will not be a > viable > > option any time soon (soon being before the publication of an IPv6 NAT > > RFC), and B) why network providers (and other parties who stand to gain > > financially) are firmly against IPv6 NAT. > What about costs? If you're a realist, you know that v6 migration is a cost problem. Ask cable or DSL providers across the world what percentage of their user base CPE is v6 compatable and the answer will likely be shocking. In this economy, unless the seondary market is egregiously expensive, don't expect to see a mass migration. There's also the problem of no known commericial grade NAT device (SLA worthy) that makes this easier. Thoughts appreciated. Best, Martin -- Martin Hannigan mar...@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079
