Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)

["Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony at atkielski.com>]

Scott Leibrand writes:

> They can charge for IPv4 addresses because they're perceived to be scarce.
> With IPv6 they may be able to charge for allowing me a /48 instead of a
> /56 or /64, but IMO they won't be able to assign me a /128 by default and
> charge me if I want a /64.

They will charge you for every address beyond one.  Wait and see.

BTW, giving out /64s is one reason why the IPv6 address space will be
exhausted in barely more time than was required to exhaust the IPv4
address space.

> Then I will switch ISPs.

They will all be doing it.

> ARIN guidelines specifically require ISPs to give out larger blocks when
> requested.  If any ISPs try to be hard-nosed about it and give out /128's
> anyway, it will be pretty easy to pressure & shame them sufficiently that
> they'll feel it in the marketplace.

How?  I haven't been able to pressure or shame my ISP into setting
rDNS correctly for my IP address.  In fact, nobody at my ISP knows
what that means.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf