Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[Patrick Giagnocavo <patrick () zill net>]

Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 19/04/2010 16:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> > The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to do
> > so [...]
>
> Patrick,
>
> Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a natted
> eyeball network?  The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with could
> never figure out which aspect of NAT hurt more: the technical side or the
> business side.
>
> Nick

I apologize for a lack of clarity, in that what I meant was:

"NAT for eyeball ISPs is technically possible and feasible if needed
(since IP addresses are centrally managed by one company); NAT for
servers (in the sense of dedicated/colocated systems run by different
people/companies) is almost technically impossible and not feasible due
to customer training needed and the coordination that would be required."

I meant "trivial" FSVO "possible" - sorry.

--Patrick