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: >> >> 1) 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.