Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Jim Gettys <jg () freedesktop org>]

On 01/15/2011 06:30 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?

Can we *please* stop this pointless thread?

If not, at least I will inject a fact into this pointless thread with a 
factoid from Comcast's IPv6 trial, e.g. my address....  I know it is 
sooo terrible to have the gall to do such a treacherous thing as 
injecting actual information with counterexample, when such high 
velocity hand waving is in progress, but such it will be.
                        - Jim


jg@jg:~$ /sbin/ifconfig wlan0
wlan0     Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:23:14:4e:3f:50
          inet addr:192.168.1.118  Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: 2001:55c:62e5:6320:223:14ff:fe4e:3f50/64 
Scope:Global
          inet6 addr: fe80::223:14ff:fe4e:3f50/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:2333470 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:2117301 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:2474359067 (2.4 GB)  TX bytes:1296861717 (1.2 GB)