Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk)]

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.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Smith
[mailto:nanog at 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 <bross at 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
>