JAC70
join:2008-10-20
canada | reply to aefstoggaflm
Re: [Express] Rogers express 80gb cap? said by aefstoggaflm:#1 Is that for
a) IPv4 only,
b) for IPv6 only
c) OR for both IPv4 and IPv6?
#2 Why do they plan to do that? This is just speculation, mind you, but as I understand it, with IPV6, every device should be assigned an IP, since NAT breaks protocols. It's not a stretch to think that Rogers could charge extra for multiple IPs.
quote:
If you use our router we will support you for free, but if you use your own router we require extra money to support you.
Why can't Rogers do that? Thanks. |
|
| said by JAC70:This is just speculation, mind you, but as I understand it, with IPV6, every device should be assigned an IP, since NAT breaks protocols. Which protocols would those be? The vast majority of protocols work perfectly fine with NAT. Most of those that used to get "broken" by NAT were only broken due to poor design such as remote client software relying on unnecessary IP:port information provided in the application protocol instead of IP:port provided in the existing packet headers which is the standard practice.
The only thing that got "broken" by NAT is the need to setup port forwarding for applications that need to accept inbound connections but this requirement will likely remain for security/firewalling purposes (prevent people from accidentally exposing open ports to the rest of the internet) with IPv6, so nothing really saved there either. |
|
JAC70
join:2008-10-20
canada | My limited understand is that most network boffins hate that NAT breaks the end-to-end model, but administrators don't want to renumber IPs if they change ISPs, and they don't want to have to learn new security methods. Then there's the problem that hardware manufacturers will just go ahead and build NAT66 devices anyway. I'll refer you to the IETF for questions.  |
|
