On 2010-05-29 03:01, David Conrad wrote: > On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global address sharing. > > An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the "other form of global address sharing" part, since single NAT is address sharing. Do you have any data? Sorry, I should have written "subscribers" instead of "users". Most subscribers get global addresses on the outside of their domestic gateway, but of course that gateway is unfortunately a NAT in most cases. >>> IPv4 free pool runout simply means connecting to the Internet is going to get more expensive. >> No, it means it is going to require double NAT unless providers deploy IPv6. > > I've been told on numerous occasions that multi-layer NAT will significantly increase opex. Yes. It will also significantly increase breakage at application level. I understand there is plenty of running code proof of this, for example in India. > >> That is the message that needs to be got across. > > I suspect your message will result in a response of "Double whasis? I can still get my pr0n, right?". I'd imagine a message that says "you're going to end up paying more for your pr0n" will get more people's attention. In fact I think the message now should be to content *providers*, because they will bear the costs unless they pressure their ISPs into doing the right thing. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf