Subject: RE: (NAT) IPv6 and NAT

From: "Neuijen, S.M.J.G." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:33:03 +0100

> I happen to think that ISPs will charge a premium for multiple and/or
stable
> v6 addresses because that is the status quo and because the market will
bear
> it.  Thus, I suspect that NAT will remain quite active if/when IPv6 is
> deployed.

Maybe they wan't do that anymore when their competitors offer the same
service for free, and why wouldn't they? IPv6 addresses, as opposed to ipv4
addresses, are NOT a scarse resource!

So only one "FREE ISP" has to make the move.....

Saskia
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Joris Dobbelsteen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:54:23 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Neuijen, S.M.J.G.
> Sent: dinsdag 19 september 2000 17:33
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: (NAT) IPv6 and NAT
>
>
Agree, but /48 IPv6 subnets can be allocated many times more than IPv4
address are currently available. However /48 subnets for my home network
would allow me to even connect all the bricks to the Internet (by matter of
speaking), I think Free ISPs don't have to complain about someone allocating
a /48 subnet or maybe smaller ones.

Some simple calculations indicate ISPs can allocate many more clients if
they only have /72 or /80 subnet. And give clients /48 subnets.
So ISPs should actually not complain about giving you no subnet....

At least this is my opinion.

Also this ensure end-to-end communication for even my refrigerator (not that
it will that soon). Also it's more likely people get dedicted Internet
connections, I think, like ADSL and Cable. We have seen that NAT was a
mistake on the Internet. (I'm convinced about it now).

I think the implementation of this over phone lines is not likely to happen
suddenly (you don't have your modem online for 24 hours).

> Saskia

- Joris

---

From: "Amit Datta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:51:40 -0400

Hi!
I am working on a thesis on Voice over IP with possible implementations of
the same in a educational institution.

All the available articles point out to the QoS problem IP has (basically
lag>250ms) rendering it a wee bit untolerable. I know that VoIP works
great in a controlled environment (LAN/WAN) and VoFR and VoATM is even
better.

I am looking at any article that might explain or clarify if IPv6 or IPnG
will address this QoS issue and the voice packets prioritisation problem.

Also, if any one can point me to Case Studies of busines corporations
(cisco, lucent, any F500 company) that has sucessfully implemented VoIP
over their private Intranets?

Thanks!
Any help would be a life saver.
I have pretty much ran into a cul-de-sac here with my research.

Cheers!
Amit Datta
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623