North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk <[email protected]> wrote:
Vendor C claims to support v6 (without NAT) in their "enterprise class" stateful firewall appliance as of OS version 7.2 (or thereabouts, perhaps 7.0). I've not tried it out yet to see how well it works.
But, as far as the home/home office goes -- will my cable/dsl provider be able (willing?) to route a small v6 prefix to my home so that I can use a bitty-box stateful v6 firewall without NAT? What will be the cost to me, the home subscriber, to get said routable prefix? I am sure it increases the operator's expense to route a prefix to most (if not every) broadband subscriber in an area.
In the beginning, cable operators were reluctant to support home customers using NAT routers to share their access. Now, renting/selling NAT routers to customers has become a revenue stream for some.
How does lack of v6 NAT affect all of this?