[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IPv6 adoption behavior
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> "Jeroen Massar" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Again, it is not very interesting for the purposes of
> determining whether IPv6 can _replace_ IPv4+NAT as suggested.
Even IPv4 can replace IPv4+NAT, anything can replace that
mechanism that is breaking end-to-end connectivity.
> Sure there is if the user has no access to the *local* end which is
> embedded in the tamper-resistant firmware of a smart phone. My point
> was that this is a context where you can force the user to pay per
> address since he cannot install NAT within the phone.
I think you want to dig more into covert channels.
There is always a way in or out :)
> |> I understand that actual end-user requirements are not a
> |> major consideration for IPv6 development.
> |The enduser wants one thing: it needs to work(tm)
> The end-user has tasted the power of internetworking. I don't think
> you will make him forget that easily. But then I may be wrong. It
> is said that nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence
> of the consumer. Or something like that.
You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
> |> an individual networks his own computers and
> |> connects that network to the internet as in the
> |> pre-commercial model.
> |Which won't scale as that would require to much routing
> |information and administration in the RIR's.
> This is just another variation of the "PI doesn't scale"
> argument. The administration angle is kind of funny, though. Isn't it
> amazing how the registries manage to "administer" as many domain names as
> anybody cares to pay for? I guess it's much harder to keep a list of numbers
> than to keep a list of names...
You mean that adminstration of domain names that includes a lot
of inconsistensies is handled by about 250 'registries' and usually
doesn't even contain any real data so that abuse is completely
> |> Your statement is extremely misleading, comparing apples and
> |> turnips. It is true that _a_ network connected without NAT
> |> enjoys a slightly larger
> |> set of capabilities (though they are capabilities that are
> |> not important to the typical NAT user)
> |Let me put it this way: they want their mp3's (-> warez).
> |Thus they need to do P2P as they know no other way.
> |This requires a non-NATted IP.
> Of course, that's not quite true. People keep trying to
> project onto NAT the problems caused by the provider's
> limitation of a single IP address.
NAT limits me in the way the internet was designed.
Which was made to communicate between hosts: End To End.
Not Multi To End.
> |> The correct comparison, then, is between a NAT-connected network
> |> and a network that is not connected to the internet at all.
> |> Which one enjoys greater capability?
> |The NAT connected network with an IPv6 tunnel :)
> I agree that that is even better:
> (NAT connected network with IPv6 tunnel) >
> (NAT connected network) > (unconnected network)
> However, I suspect that you will find that if/when IPv6 access becomes
> valuable to the typical customer, your tunnel broker will
> start charging you for addresses just as your local ISP would.
Accidentally it is partially 'my' tunnelbroker ;)
I have heared of nobody yet doing this and I don't expect
it become that way for the coming couple of years.
At least not while there is no general IPv6 access.
The company that owns the POP makes up their own
policy and can make it a public or a closed POP.
Charge whatever they want, that is their business.
But in the spirit of good will and the fact that
most other services (ftp servers/public download)
will cost them much more traffic all except two of
the POP's are public, with 2 extra public ones in the pipe.
Actually there have been requests in the past for a service
like a tunnelbroker for which people have to pay to get
a stable set of IPv6 addresses which can move with them
when they swap ISP's. Basically this is also a way of
solving PI, just tunnel the space :)
Though one is not independent of the TB in that case.
But one is always dependent on one instance or another.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / email@example.com / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6