extending at the edge

[Lorenzo Colitti]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The internet is quite adept at routing around stupidity-related
> brokenness
> > like this.  If providers do it, then people will start implementing NAT6.
>
> I hope you mean NPTv6 (RFC 6296) and ULA addressing, which is somewhat less
> horrible than NAT44 and RFC 1918 addressing.
>

No, I think IPv4-style NAT is precisely what he means. Think about it this
way: if a provider wants to charge on a per-/128 basis, and the user only
wants to pay the provider once but connect multiple devices, then the only
way to do that is IPv4-style NAT. As I noted earlier, in this model
(almost) everybody is worse off, but it's not clear that there's a way to
avoid that happening.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20121011/519a0a6e/attachment.htm>