In message <000901cbcb22$3cf978a0$b6ec69e0$@org>, "Lee Howard" writes: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bo...@adacore.com] > > > > Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using > > an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from > > $150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways. > > > HE was quite straightforward. Sure, I don't expect the average user > > to go through these steps, but they could easily be automated and > > rolled out as part of a firmware update (which is a routine matter > > Yes, if the ISP provided the gateway. In many markets, they don't. > Even if they start now, they would have to convince every customer > to swap routers. And find the capital to pay for them. And have a > system for updating the firmware and configurations of those > devices. Or maybe the customer's going to have to buy a new > gateway, when the one they have is still functioning, and might > even be brand new. > > > the foreseeable future, people will have (NATed or not) IPv4 > > connectivity, so content providers are fine without IPv6. > > Depends on the content. Large-scale NAT is bad for you if you > depend on IP geo-location, or use anti-DDOS measures to limit > number of connections or bits from a single IP address, or use > IP address to report abuse, or blacklist IP addresses, or log the > user's IP address, or try to enforce copyright by reporting IP > addresses of violators, or rate-limit outbound data per address, > or record unique visitors by IP address. > It might also increase latency, but probably not so much that > you'd panic.
And a lot of that depends upon how you implement LSN. * LSN per pop or a uber mega LSN? * How many customers per address? 2 or 200? -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
