Re: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

[Christopher Chan <christopher.chan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos