Subject: RE: Fw: avoiding NAT with IPv6

From: "BAUDOT Alain FTRD/DMI/CAE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:47:37 +0200

> >On the contrary, maybe, providing a /48 while having a /32 as an
> >ISP makes NAT coming as a solution, according to the potential
> >number of customers... and, for sure, I do agree that we have to
> >make NAT silly.
> 
> 	ISP can ask for more address to RIR when they have got 
> 2^16 customers.
>
Sure. I just wonder if a /48 at home is really apprpriate.

Alain. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:00:38 +0200

Unless you think we are likely to exhaust the
35 trillion /48s quickly, it's entirely appropriate
(because it keeps things simple).

    Brian