On Feb 13, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > 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? > Most LSNs will probably be regional collections of LSN boxes that are (somewhat randomly) load balanced.
Owen
