On 8/2/13 8:50 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > >>> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the > >>> ISP business model. > >> > >> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to > >> kill NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral > part of > >> ISPs' master plan to take over the universe. > >> > >> Clearly you all both can't be right. > > > ISPs were against NATs at first. It was only later that they embraced > > them. > > > This mess is still the ISP fault. If they gave users what they > wanted, which > is multiple IP addresses, then they wouldn't have to install NAT (I am > still > paying $9.95 per month for the privilege of having 4 additional IPv4 > addresses > on my Comcast connection). And that would have accelerated IPv6 > deployment. > Wierdly, I don't actually want to bridge my home network to my ISP nor are they frankly likely to accommodate my need for a /27 without some consideration, while there are plenty of ways that can be achieved with IPv4 they have more friction and therefore cost for the isp and the consumer then simply receiving one ip via dhcp and getting on with my life. it's also somewhat convenient when that primary provider is down that the network can be hung off an LTE connection (renumbering isn't a problem, dhcp can address that, getting one IP is). My current CPE does DHCPv6 PD and comcast accommodates me accordingly. I hope verizon LTE will eventually. > The firewall issue is orthogonal (which I put the blame on Microsoft > sloppy > coding practices). > Windows machines are not principally the devices on my homenet whose code I don't trust. consumer electronics don't get a lot of software updates. >