[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Frank Habicht]

Hi all,

(first post to ppml ;-)

I'd like to argue that there's more NAT than many here think.
I didn't buy a NAT device, but I NAT my 192.168.0.0/24 in my house (on
Pentium1) somewhere into 172.16.0.0/12 which gets NATed at the ISP.
Hopefully not much longer because the ISP will start using their (new,
'own') /19.

And yes, this is not in (ip4-)address-space-rich North America, but in
former-arin-land Tanzania. (or was the discussion about use in arin region?)
Another ISP here is said to charge $10 for a static /32.

I agree that people understand more and will demand more....

Frank Habicht


On 5/13/2005 9:29 AM, josmon wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:10:27PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>>>	the NAT-capable boxes at my house have NAT turned off. the
>>>	NAT-mandatory boxes I have purchased (and no doubt recorded
>>>	as units sold) have been relegated to the e-waste bin....
>>
>>I have to second Bill on this.  I have 7 devices in my house capable of
>>doing NAT and probably counted as units sold.  NONE of them are actually
>>doing any NAT.  There is NO NAT in my house.
>>
>>Sales of NAT capable units are a very poor way to measure NAT deployment.
> 
> 
> When it comes to NAT, I'm willing to bet that the average ppml
> subscriber is less likely to NAT than the public at large, so
> any response is (at best) skewed.
> 
> With that said, I have to throw in with Bill and Owen and admit to no
> NAT in my house.
> 
> What I find interesting, is that I've been telling people that use
> NAT that they aren't actually on the Internet -- but rather proxied
> to it.  In the last six months or so several folks have indicated that
> they actually understood that statement.  
> 
> Is it possible that people are finally starting to see that NAT breaks
> end-to-end connectivity?  (Or am I just hanging out with a better/worse crowd?)