On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:08 AM, Todd Rinaldo wrote: > > 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. Ah, I must pity you who have to live with what you've got in the United States being under the rule of these tyrants. You guys probably can only dream of getting a 100MB fibre connection for 13USD/mnth or a 1GB fibre connection for 30 or so USD/mnth. I hesitate to keep the chaps in Australia on the list to be pitied now that Telstra is being dismantled.