[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is bad?]


>It's even worse than that. If you are residential user, try finding a
>home router that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
>unfortunate conclusion that they no longer exist.  The market
>landscape has shifted dramatically. All home routers come with NAT
>builtin and the functionality can simply _NOT_ be disabled.

They do exist, but I agree with you not at the very low end.  When I 
switched DSL providers (actually my old one decided it could no longer 
support my area), my new one supplied me with a small router (not one of 
brand names one can buy in places like Fry's).  This box was a real router 
(e.g., it even supported RIPv2) and had NAT that could be 
enabled/disabled.  Note that I did pay extra for a higher grade of DSL and 
a block of public IPv4 addresses.

I figured it would be hypocritical for me to run NAT at home and work on 
IPv6 in the IETF, so I was willing to pay a bit more money.  Everyone has 
to make their own decision.  It's a version of "think globally, act locally".

>Given the current feature/functionaliy/price point reality of home
>routers, getting them to implement reasonable functionality as an IPv6
>router seems like it will be a rather hard sell. :-(

I think it will be driven by vendors shipping products with applications 
that make good of IPv6 and that people want to run.  This will give the 
home router vendors some real incentive to add IPv6 support.


IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6