[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition

[Mark Andrews]

In message <4D520C02.2000709 at brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/8/2011 9:19 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> >
> > given that wireless carrriers are there already it's not really a
> > question of maybe. v6 only deployments will occur but that's not per-say
> > a solution.
> >
> 
> Even v6 only deployments will need NAT64 or 4rd (not really v6 only) 
> until market demand on IPv4 diminishes enough for us to tell the rest to 
> get over it and buy IPv6 gear or create their own 4 over 6 tunnels. 
> Unlike IPv6, where often you may not have seen an extra charge (some 
> did), you will see increased fees if you want IPv4 on the IPv6 internet 
> before it's all over. This will be the ISP exerting reverse pressure on 
> the market (we switched to IPv6, now you can pay us if you want to use 
> that legacy junk which increases our support costs). That's supposing we 
> don't just get fed up with it and send it to the nearest /dev/null (but 
> hey! We can charge for supporting that old stuff!)

If ISPs had been informing their customers about IPv6 10 years ago
then charging extra for IPv4 over IPv6 would have been reasonable.
As it is none of them did so I would expect government consumer
affairs departments to actually come down hard on ISPs that attempt
something like that.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org