[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Howard, W. Lee]

Good example.  I've heard that address assignment in Africa is
different than North America, because ISPs (frequently the PTT)
don't want customers multihoming--they see that as promoting the
competition.  What do you think will happen when they're 
assigning IPv6 space?

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Frank Habicht
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 2:57 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6>>32
> 
> 
> 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?)
>