On 8/2/13 8:50 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
ISP business model.
So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to
kill NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral
part of
ISPs' master plan to take over the universe.
Clearly you all both can't be right.
ISPs were against NATs at first. It was only later that they embraced
them.
This mess is still the ISP fault. If they gave users what they
wanted, which
is multiple IP addresses, then they wouldn't have to install NAT (I am
still
paying $9.95 per month for the privilege of having 4 additional IPv4
addresses
on my Comcast connection). And that would have accelerated IPv6
deployment.
Wierdly, I don't actually want to bridge my home network to my ISP nor
are they frankly likely to accommodate my need for a /27 without some
consideration, while there are plenty of ways that can be achieved with
IPv4 they have more friction and therefore cost for the isp and the
consumer then simply receiving one ip via dhcp and getting on with my
life. it's also somewhat convenient when that primary provider is down
that the network can be hung off an LTE connection (renumbering isn't a
problem, dhcp can address that, getting one IP is).
My current CPE does DHCPv6 PD and comcast accommodates me accordingly. I
hope verizon LTE will eventually.
The firewall issue is orthogonal (which I put the blame on Microsoft
sloppy
coding practices).
Windows machines are not principally the devices on my homenet whose
code I don't trust. consumer electronics don't get a lot of software
updates.