IPv6 PI allocation

[Nick Hilliard]

> Nat is working wonderfully and will allow for the numbering of another 5
> billion people in less than half the address space currently allocated :p

What worries me is not the nat, but the nat-upon-nat and 
nat-upon-nat-upon-nat, and the ever increasing layers of bad networking 
layered upon worse.

The issue that interests me is whether this will stabilise into something 
which mostly kind-of works or whether people will realise that this will 
be a stereotype good-money-after-bad situation and eventually cut their 
losses and migrate to v6, when they realise the brokenness and therefore 
direct financial loss that nat introduces at a larger scale.

I've worked with several ISPs in the past who - for reasons known only to 
themselves - decided to provide NAT service from day 1.  All realised 
after a very short time that this translated into significantly higher 
overheads while providing a sub-standard service;  but also - and more 
interestingly - realised that the expenditure required to get them out of 
the NAT hole was less than what NAT was costing them over a very short time.

Nick