On 12/6/10 4:40 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
> IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time
> until IPv4 exhaustion. A side effect was hiding the internal IPv4
> address, which complicates a number of protocols like FTP and SIP. The
> only downside I see is ISPs could try and charge based on the number
> of IPv6 addresses being used.
>
There should be plenty of addresses so the ISPs wouldn't have to charge much.
I'm just wondering how routers are going to deal with the size of the route
tables if they are not very carefully organized.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
