Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
AT&T used to charge for any telephone color other than black, even
though the cost of producing a telephone was the same no matter what
color it was.
AT&T also used to charge for additional private IP addresses. I remember one
company had a bussiness package with them and was also leasing a router that
came locked down and configured to use 192.168.0.0/27 on the LAN. When this
company wanted more IP's internally AT&T wanted to charge them more to
"upgrade" them to a 192.168.0.0/24
----------------
John-
I agree that no IPv6 solution involving customers giving up the (percieved?)
freedom of NAT for a construct that has them suckling from their ISP's tit
again is really going to go over well.
One small note also about the ISP supplied modem - at least in my experience in
Los Angeles - the basic modems I've seen act solely as a pass-through (they
have no configuration menus -etc). I know today modem/home networking in a box
devices are being pushed (because the ISP's charge extra for it), but the basic
end user is getting no bells and whistles -(at least with SBC, Verizon, and
Comcast).
FWIW-(which isn't much), IMO people like NAT because it lets them do what they
want without paying more or getting permission. Cause I think thats really all
they want from any solution.
nick
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf