Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross <bross () pobox com> 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.

How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out
there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a
single IPv6 address?

>  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