On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk > that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware > doesn't support it." > > I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for a static prefix, > though. And that's technically possible. > Unfortunate, but, true. Fortunately, I don't have that problem. I got my addresses elsewhere for less. ($100/year from ARIN is less than $120/year from your ISP.)
Owen > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Smith > [mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org] > Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:30 PM > To: Brandon Ross > Cc: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection? > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST) > Brandon Ross <br...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote: >> >>> Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will >>> probably be implemented for IPv6: >> >> You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain. >> Service providers will continue to assign only a single IP address to >> residential users unless they pay an additional fee for additional >> addresses. > > How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out > there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a > single IPv6 address? > >> Since many residential users won't stand for an additional >> fee, pressure will be placed on CPE vendors to include v6 PAT in their >> devices. >> >> -- >> Brandon Ross AIM: > BrandonNRoss >> ICQ: > 2269442 >> Skype: brandonross Yahoo: > BrandonNRoss >> > >