On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 08:57 AM, David wrote:
Folks
I have been following the IPV6 comments.
What concerns me with the loss of NAT are the following issues:
- My friend from half-way around the world comes to visit. He turns
on his IPV6 enabled device (think Ipad), and wants to use my ISP's connection. What IP address does he get? If it's his home address, that makes routing difficult. If he dynamically gets one of "my" addresses a) Did my ISP give me enough?
Let's see...if you apply for ipv6, you get a /48 network or as David put it, 65k worth of /64 subnets.
b) Do I get charged by my ISP on a per-device basis?
Heh, if they want to micromanage...
I'm still waiting for the day I get a home ISP that doesn't nickel and dime me. I agree that this is a potential concern. What's sad is that if they decide to do this, there's little I can do about it since ipv6 doesn't support NAT.
Don't get me wrong. Now I've reviewed the spec, I agree NAT isn't required, but unless all the end user ISPs turn into benevolent Oligopolies, it is a potential issue.