Subject: RE: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:24:20 -0500

The case I was thinking about is the residential user which want
his multiple PCs to access the network, but wants to pay for one
address.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:04 PM
> To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]
> Cc: 'Christian Huitema'; Aoun, Cedric [QPD:0000:EXCH]; 'Midcom IETF
> (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid that if ISPs charge per IP address, there will 
> continue to be
> > NATs.
> 
> with 6to4, even a single IPv4 address provides 2**80 IPv6 addresses,
> which is more than enough for most organizations.  
> 
> so I'd revise your statement to say: if ISPs charge more for a /48 in
> IPv6 than they do for a /32 in IPv4, there will continue to be 6to4
> boxes.
> 
> we should view NAT and v6 as complementary approaches rather than as
> competing ones.  NAT gives you the ability to interoperate between
> v4 hosts even when there are not enough v4 addresses to go around;
> NAT-PT gives you the ability to interoperate between v4 and v4.
> v6 gives you the ability to address each host individually, which is
> essential to support applications that cannot work through NATs.
> 
> I fully expect to find NAT, NAT-PT, and IPv6/6to4 in the same box, 
> each handling different kinds of connections.
> 
> Keith
> 
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:35:18 -0400

> his multiple PCs to access the network, but wants to pay for one

sure.  so he pays for one IPv4 address and uses 6to4 to tunnel
up to 2**80 IPv6 addresses to and from that IPv4 endpoint.

ISPs that provide native IPv6 will be encouraged to provide
a minimum allocation of /48 to every IPv6 customer.  But if they
don't provide this minimum allocation, or if they charge more
for an IPv6 /48 than for a single IPv4 address, the customer
will just get his IPv6 access using 6to4 - much as that same
customer gets multiple host IPv4 access through NAT today.

Also, if the address registries do the right thing, IPv6 addresses 
will be cheaper and far less scare than IPv4 addresses.  So the ISP
will have less incentive to charge per-address in IPv6 than in
IPv4.

Keith

---

From: Andrew Molitor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:12:07 -0500 (CDT)

It is safe to assume that some administrators will find
it undesirable to expose the internal structure of their network
in the IP addresses they send.

	We may cease to call that NATs, and rename them 'address
anonymizers' or something, but they'll still replace at least
some of the bits in MY IPv6 addresses with opaque cookies when
they're flying around outside. It may no longer be necessary to
overload port numbers as an address space expander, but it may
wind up still being useful to anonymize port numbers as well.

	It doesn't actually matter whether these devices are
a Good Idea or not, and it certainly doesn't matter if the IETF
issues Stern Memos condemning their existence. Vendors will
placidly implement them, and customers will just as placidly
buy them, and it would be well to proceed assuming they will
exist.

	This is, in my opinion, part of the reason for MIDCOM's
existence -- to recognize and deal with this truth, be it a sad
and horrible truth, or a fine and glorious one.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:17:20 -0400

> in the IP addresses they send.

yes, I think that's true.  but there are better ways to solve this 
problem than address translation.

few organizations' telephone numbers expose the internal structure
of their telephone networks.  and yet many organizations have 
thousands of telephones that are directly reachable from outside,
with globally-unique, consistent, addersses.

Keith