In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yakov Rekhter typed:
>>Consider an alternative where the client decides to use IPv6. Granted,
>>the client could get enough IPv6 addresses for all purposes, regardless of
>>whether these purposes essential or not. But then in order for that
>>client to communicate with the rest of the folks, the client would
>>likely to use NAT (as the rest of the folks would still use IPv4).
its economics - if one large client uses IPv6, then so will others
eventually as its cheaper for all of them colelctively than for them
to go on using NATs.
>>the cost of using NAT wouldn't go away. But in addition, this alternative
>>would cause the client to swallow the cost of transition from IPv4 to IPv6
>>in its infrastructure.
right - the problem is gettng the FIRST person to go - clearly a
PROVIDER could consider swallowing the cost (i.e. pay cisco to
implement, and debug a deployed IPv6 backbone and then chase customer
problems) - why?> because in the LONG run there's more subscribers
selling content, doing busienss in a fully IP (v6) connected net
than on a NAT disconnect, and so there's more money for the
provider....
btw, i think the address space stuff for subscribers using NATs is often
(not always) hokum - its
mostly that they can't be bothered to design a decent addressing
architecture for their intranets.
cheers
jon
