W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:05:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3DEB84DD.7040006@att.com>
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org

The major problem I see is the desire of ISPs to only allow one IP 
address to be grabbed per connection to the ISP. This is usually done 
under the pretext of a business model that assumes the usage pattern of 
a single machine. "If you want more than one IP, that must mean you're 
running multiple machines, and that means you're going to be using up 
more bandwidth that we've alloted for you under your current $$$ plan, 
and so you need to pay us more." If you're behind such an ISP, NAT is 
the only solution around to sharing that address across multiple machines.

As long as ISPs continue to work under this pretext, it won't matter if 
they're handing out IPv4 #'s or IPv6 #'s -- they'll still only want to 
hand out a single IP address, and people are going to continue to use 
NAT in some form to get around the problem.

I think we need some incentive for them to hand out IPv6 addresses in 
chunks of /24 or larger. I don't know what such an incentive would be.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 11:08:03 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:46:24 EST