On 03/28/06 at 6:11am +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scott Leibrand writes: > > > NAT (plus CIDR) was the short-term solution, and is realistic as a > > medium-term solution. In the long term, though, I don't think it will be > > the only solution. > > It will be if ISPs continue to charge for extra IP addresses, as they > probably always will. They can charge for IPv4 addresses because they're perceived to be scarce. With IPv6 they may be able to charge for allowing me a /48 instead of a /56 or /64, but IMO they won't be able to assign me a /128 by default and charge me if I want a /64. > > And if someday I want to switch to a new ISP who prefers not to give out > > IPv4 addresses at all, that'll be fine with me, as long as my ISP provides > > me IPv4 translation services to reach that portion of the Internet that is > > still IPv4-only at that point. > > If your ISP charges you extra for more than one IPv6 address, what > will you do? Then I will switch ISPs. ARIN guidelines specifically require ISPs to give out larger blocks when requested. If any ISPs try to be hard-nosed about it and give out /128's anyway, it will be pretty easy to pressure & shame them sufficiently that they'll feel it in the marketplace. -Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf