nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: Patrick Giagnocavo <patrick () zill net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:32:14 -0400
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <4BCD14EF.8090204 () zill net>, Patrick Giagnocavo writes:Mark Andrews wrote:In message <201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459 () aurora sol net>, Joe Greco writes:I haven't seen any such documents or regulations.People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would get a Internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different thing.Given that many ISPs put their sign-up documents, including contracts, on-line, you can no doubt supply a link to such a document that has legal terms that would preclude NATed service, yes? My recollection is only that I would be provided with "Internet service" or "access to the Internet" . No mention of RFC1918 space or other distinguishing information was given. Note in the below blurb no mention of publicly routable addresses...It doesn't have to as the normal definition of a Internet address is a publically routable internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet address (Big I Internet).
(hope the attribution is not screwed up) *ANY* valid Internet Protocol address is an "IP address" as mentioned in the contract I quoted. Including 192.168.99.2 .
If you supply something less than a full blown Internet access you need to point out the restriction otherwise I would expect you to be subject to "Bait and Switch" and other consumer protection laws.
You are charmingly naive about how "the law" actually works in the USA - that is IMHO. In any case, I left the large amount of quotes in to show that I (and possibly Joe) are asking you for specific examples to support your argument - and all you are offering is more of your personal opinion, which is not an objective source of support for your position. If I want that, I can go to any of *.livejournal.com, *.blogger.com , etc. --Patrick
Current thread:
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?, (continued)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Patrick Giagnocavo (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Florian Weimer (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Joe Abley (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Joe Greco (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 19)
- RE: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Frank Bulk (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Joe Greco (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Patrick Giagnocavo (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Patrick Giagnocavo (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? bmanning (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? bmanning (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Newton (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? bmanning (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Joe Greco (Apr 20)