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

[Jack Bates]

On 2/8/2011 9:50 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Except many often charge for static IP addressing now. To rule any 
non-LSN or NAT64 as static assignment and charge extra wouldn't be much 
different. It won't be immediate, but I'd be surprised if in 2 years 
ISPs aren't ready to kill IPv4 and start pushing it out the door with 
rate increases.

Let's be honest, the IPv4 network is going to suck. We cannot maintain 
even the limited hack of end to end connectivity we have now with IPv4 
in the long run. The IPv6 network will do its job and in some ways be 
even better (especially after it's patched up the way operators want). 
User won't want to use the IPv4 network. Content providers won't want to 
use the IPv4 network. That old IPv4 PS3 will have problems with hosted 
games (which are p2p) on the IPv4 network.

Supporting old Windows 95/98 boxes (which aren't even supported by M$ 
anymore) and other obsolete equipment isn't the ISP's job, and the 
government isn't going to tell them otherwise (not the same government 
that forced a reclaim on airwaves and forced people into digital tv 
world, or the same government(s) that wants to ban incandescent light 
bulbs and force people to buy new fixtures that can hold the alternatives).


Jack