On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:12:26 -0500 Jim Gettys <j...@freedesktop.org> wrote:
> On 01/15/2011 06:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > > 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? > > > > Can we *please* stop this pointless thread? > I don't think it pointless to network operators - NAT or not has operational impacts on troubleshooting, network design, addressing plans etc. I understand you aren't a network operator, so if you're not interested perhaps you should unsubscribe. Thanks, Mark.