> 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. Why on earth not? You give them one "thing" either way. Same overhead to issue, same overhead to route. > 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. This is not the least bit believable.