Subject: Re: IPv6 Comment
To: <>
From: Feico Dillema <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/04/2000 23:53:31
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:45:57PM -0300, Jared D. McNeill wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Feico Dillema wrote:
> > I am currently assisting as a consultant setting up a broadband ISP
> > (24 hour bi-directional 10Mbs and maybe 100Mbs or more in the far future, 
> > i.e.  a few years from now, so no pathetic ADSL or shared-bandwidth
> > Cable ;), requiring basically all the bandwidth current and future
> > technology can provide in its core network. NAT a feasible option in
> > such a network? NATPT? I don't think so. Why? Simply, because Cisco
> > (or any for that matter) doesn't sell equipment that can do such a
> > thing at multi-Gbs speed. And even if they did it would be
> > outragiously expensive. And this type of network is growing at an
> I'm using a similar service (24 hr bi-directional 10mbps), and my ISP uses
> NAT. Everything's working fine, and the speeds are great.

Yeah, great for traditional Web-surfing and such. But does your ISP
allow (or plans to) you to run servers at home? Does your ISP provide
you (or plans to) IP-telephony service, video-conferencing, decent
quality TV and radio broadcasting? Can you rent and play DVD movies 
from your ISPs servers?  Do they have a 100 thousand customers or 
plan their network for a 100000 customer a year growth rate? Did they 
just get hold of a UMTS license to provide high-speed mobile connectivity 
and telephony with their net? I think you would at least answer no to one 
or two of the above. I'd answer yes to all the above for the ISP I'm working 
for. These things all are NAT-unfriendly or better NAT is unfriendly
to such a setting, if not plain hostile.

NAT is not an option for them inside their core-net. NATPT at 100Gbs
switching speed? I don't think so.  
NAT is an option and necessity for client home-networks with more 
than one PC (ordinary customers don't easily get more than one semi-static
IP-address) but that's not saving much address space anymore. This 
ISP alone burns one or two B-class sized nets a year already, and it
just started its expansian into neighbouring countries. And this is
just one young ISP which competes with ADSL-providing telco's and
Cable-providers which burn address space in similar ways. Believe me
it makes RIPE nervous already, and makes them put IPv6 higher and
higher on their agenda.