Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>
> > Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will probably be implemented for IPv6:
>
> You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain. Service providers will continue to assign only 
> a single IP address to residential users unless they pay an additional fee for additional addresses.  Since many 
> residential users won't stand for an additional fee, pressure will be placed on CPE vendors to include v6 PAT in 
> their devices.
>
> -- 
> Brandon Ross                                              AIM:  BrandonNRoss
>                                                               ICQ:  2269442
>                                   Skype:  brandonross  Yahoo:  BrandonNRoss

I really doubt this will be the case in IPv6.

The few service providers that try this will rapidly find their customers moving to service providers that do not.

I know that Comcast is not planning to do this to their customers. I can't imagine too many ISPs that might
even attempt to get away with treating their customers worse than Comcast does.


Owen