[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Does IPv6 preclude use of a NAT gateway?

On 12/07/11 09:42, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 07/10/11 at 07:20am, Randy Kramer wrote:
>> On Saturday 09 July 2011 10:22:01 pm William Hopkins wrote:
>>> On 07/09/11 at 05:14pm, Randy Kramer wrote:


> There are a few issues here.. first and foremost is your desire to 'hide' your
> computers. There's no reason for that -- currently some ISPs try to make you
> pay more to run multiple computers, which is wrong. But in IPv6 this
> restriction *will not* exist, I assure you. Why else would they assign /64s,
> /56s or /48s ?

What you suggest is quite reasonable - regrettably it's not the way of
telco's that are also ISPs. As this is a public list I'll refrain from
giving examples (bite the hands that feeds, mmm, nutritious). For a
shortlist of those that have absolutely no intention of "losing the
ability to upsell" (unquote) - see the list of major Australian ISPs who
did not participate in IPV6 day, and as yet have made no preparation for
dual stacks either.
At a technical level (as opposed to marketing and sales) it's stated as
"how to remove the risk of subscribers reselling" - Orwellian newspeak
for sharing your connection with a housemate.
I can't speak for the rest of the world but I doubt the scenario is any
different any where else - if the ISPs can get away something that will
bring in more revenue, they will. That's why an entry level modem has a
single port, and sales will try and sell another modem with more ports,
to be hung off the first modem - rather than a hub - and they will then
try and sell a more expensive plan to go with it. Yes - you'll be able
to trivially get around it - but most consumers will just fork out the
extra dollars for something they already have.



What did moths bump into before the electric light bulb was invented?
Boy, the lightbulb really screwed the moth up didn't it? Are there moths
on their way to the sun now going, "It's gonna be worth it!"
~ Bill Hicks

Reply to: