IPv6

[richb-RBmg6HWzfGThzJAekONQAQ at public.gmane.org (Rich Braun)]

Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> There is no reason for an ISP to hand
>> out IPv6 addresses one /128 at a time. They would be creating a
>> management nightmare for themselves and hurting their customers.

True enough.  But just like the old days when Ma Bell used to run
ringer-equivalency tests on subscriber lines to detect people "cheating" by
installing "non-approved" devices in their homes, the new Ma Bell will find it
rather easy to detect & charge for additional routable devices.  Given the
ease of tacking on extra fees for something that can be whipped together by
one of their techs in a bash script or router ACL rule in a matter of a few
minutes, no doubt we'll be seeing a lot of new billable "services" that come
with the rollout of IPv6.

IPv4 NAT makes such verification more or less impossible at the upstream ISP
side. That's one thing I like about the status quo.

-rich