On 03/28/06 at 6:11am +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski
<anthony(_at_)atkielski(_dot_)com> wrote:
Scott Leibrand writes:
NAT (plus CIDR) was the short-term solution, and is realistic as a
medium-term solution. In the long term, though, I don't think it will be
the only solution.
It will be if ISPs continue to charge for extra IP addresses, as they
probably always will.
They can charge for IPv4 addresses because they're perceived to be scarce.
With IPv6 they may be able to charge for allowing me a /48 instead of a
/56 or /64, but IMO they won't be able to assign me a /128 by default and
charge me if I want a /64.
And if someday I want to switch to a new ISP who prefers not to give out
IPv4 addresses at all, that'll be fine with me, as long as my ISP provides
me IPv4 translation services to reach that portion of the Internet that is
still IPv4-only at that point.
If your ISP charges you extra for more than one IPv6 address, what
will you do?
Then I will switch ISPs.
ARIN guidelines specifically require ISPs to give out larger blocks when
requested. If any ISPs try to be hard-nosed about it and give out /128's
anyway, it will be pretty easy to pressure & shame them sufficiently that
they'll feel it in the marketplace.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf