--On Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:44 -0500 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
However, we need to keep something else in mind, which
Iljitsch's note hints at. If I'm an ISP trying to sell a
low-end service to low-end customers at a low (but still
profitable) price, I need to cut customer support costs to
the absolute minimum. If someone calls up for help with a
configuration problem, that may be six month's of profits
from that customer eaten up in the cost of answering the
call.
I find myself wondering, don't they get support calls from
customers having to deal with the problems caused by the NATs?
Because they don't answer them. In the process of doing the
work that led to RFC 4084, I reviewed the terms and conditions
of service of a large number of ISPs in the US (and a few
others) who provide low-cost Internet connectivity. Some
prohibit connection of more than one machine to the incoming
line/router/modem. Others provide a NAT-capable router but
prohibit the customer from making any changes to its
configuration and from running any applications that don't work
in that environment. And still others indicate that customers
can supply their own NATs, but must obtain any support
elsewhere. All of these prohibitions are "enforced" the same
way -- if the user calls with a problem, he or she either
(i) is told that there is no support for violations of the rules
and offered the opportunity to be disconnected (often with a
large "early termination fee") or
(ii) is instructed to disconnect all equipment between the
machine in question and the router, and see if the problem still
occurs. If it doesn't, then the ISP has no problem and the
customer's problem is of no interest.
For the community, there are elements of "you get what you
pay for" in this. And, for the ISPs, unless we figure out
ways to provide the same level of support convenience with
public addresses, we will certainly see NATs with IPv6 as
well as IPv4.
either that, or IPv6 will be seen as something that is
"business use only".
That possibility had not occurred to me, but I fear you are
correct.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf