On 11/21/2004 2:48 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > cdel> This is difficult to confirm (or deny) as current research into > why users buy NAT's is not clear When you say "buy" you are adding another layer here. Most small devices come with NAT technology built-in, so there are lots of reasons why people "use" NATs that are separate from any kind of purchasing decision. On the other hand, if folks did have to shell out money for NAT versus real addresses, then adoption rates would probably be somewhat different than they are now. For one thing, It is free for SOHO users (NAT is bundled with all their devices already) and they would have to pay extra for multiple addresses from their low-end service provider. This won't change until IPv6 is equally supported by the devices and the providers, and when the providers are willing to hand out small blocks of v6 addresses at no extra cost. That probably won't happen without a coordinated push between industry, governments, and investors. Small businesses can't get portable IPv6 or IPv4 addresses, so there is no difference between NAT or not. If they want numbering independence at the local level, the low cost of SOHO NAT is the clear winner over the higher cost of specialty gear and management for IPv6. This won't change until the routing table can handle a magitude more routes (at a minimum). Large orgs have multiple tiers of management and expense sources. While they may be using the high gear and have the propellor heads on staff already for doing IPv6, the departmental manager doesn't want to here that he can't use that $30 print server on his network because of some kind of technical double-talk. This is basically the SOHO argument multiplied. There are doubtless a million variations on this (markets are elections, and people vote according to their priorities and values, which are somewhat unique to each), but in general it boils down to a lack of availability. IPv6 has to reach the same kind of unavoidable prevalance as free NAT technology has today in order for people to start using it in the same volume, and this is becomes increasingly true as you move towards the network edge. My feeling is that there has to be a group effort to change this, and it needs across-the-board cooperation. VCs need to be shown that bidirectional reachability is in their ultimate interest, in that it opens the door for new technologies and products. Small carriers need to be convinced that providing lots of addresses to each user won't bankrupt them or make them non-competitive (probably the place where government has the most to contribute in this whole thing is underwriting loans against IPv6 equipment in SOHO ISPs). Edge gear that provides NAT technology also needs to support v6 technolgy, and so does edge gear that doesn't. It needs to be a lot easier to get private routable space so that small orgs aren't implicitly forced to use NATs. Etcetera. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf