Thus spake "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw@windriver.com> > Of course, this isn't why NAT is most often used... NAT is most > often used to extend a single address to cover multiple systems > in a home or small office environment. For that environment, > an IPv6 /48 (without site-locals) would suffice to replace NAT. When you are talking about tens of millions of customers, it's not feasible to give each a subnet even if you have the space to do it. IMHO, most customers will be placed on a /64 that's shared across hundreds of customers, similar to IPv4 common practice. There is nothing to indicate that ISPs are going to change their business models simply because IPv6 address space is plentiful; they charge extra for two hosts because it is assumed two hosts consume more bits than one, not because a second IPv4 address is hard to come by. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
