On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:19:57AM -0600, Henry Sinnreich wrote: > > Tried getting a /24 lately, nevermind a /22? Or is our future NAT, > > all the way down? > > There are some discussions if/why NAT will be required for IPv6 as well, so > an IPv6 without NAT is not a certainty. Besides the solution for both
Just because they'll have NAT it doesn't mean they won't issue each warm body at least a /64 if not a /56. NAT is not really a substitute for a firewall anyway, though most residential routers seem to see it that way. Let's see what the local Docsis 3.0 deployment brings. Probably, stock IPv4 for end users :( -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
