Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

> 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?

I've talked to a lot of them...

None of the ones I've talked to have any plans to assign less than a /64
to an end-user.

Hopefully the ones that are planning on less than a /48 will come to their
senses.

Owen