[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now? (+ my 2 cents)

[Colin Faber]

Hi,

Jeroen Massar wrote:

<snip>
> "Many ISP's charge for extra ip addresses, and they dont do it just because
> they have to type in 3 commands on their router. NAT gives a certain ammount
> of security for end-users."
> 
> 1 user, not 1 endsite, not 1 ptp tunnel.
> If it where a "enduser product" there would be going
> a /48 to that enduser.
> 
> That simply is requiring the user to NAT and not giving
> them full internet access. NAT as 'security' is bullshit
> If you want to give them 'security' then offer a standard
> firewalling service like many ISP's do. And of course if
> you do offer it also offer the option to turn it off for
> the clued people.
>

Interjecting some comments here. As a real world example I'm limited to a single /30 from Qwest 
Internet services, Limiting me to that TINY allocation has nothing to do with security and 
everything to do with the bottom line ($$). A lot of ISP's I've dealt with are the same way. They do 
not like the fact that IPv6 will "solve" the IPv4 IP shortage problem because a major source of 
their revenue is based off of so called "business class" connections which provide single or VERY 
tiny blocks of static space to the end site. Others feel that they can stop people from hosting 
services on "personal class" connections which may violate the ISP's AUP by forcing the users to use 
a horrific DHCP based system or even worse yet NAT.