v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

Anthony Roberts wrote:
>> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
>> of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
> It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
> their stuff behind a firewall, and some of them will want subnets.
Why do we want to prevent people using NAT? If people choose to use
NAT, then I have no issue with that.

This anti-NAT zealotism is tiring and misplaced.

  NAT's break lots of things and increase the development
  costs of every piece of network based software being written.

  If we could get a true accounting of the extra cost imposed
  by NAT's I would say it would be in the trillions of dollars.

  NAT's are a necessary evil in IPv4. If every node that
  currently communicates to something the other side of a NAT
  was to have a global address then we would have already run
  out of IPv4 addresses.

  NAT's are not a necessary evil in IPv6. Just stop being
  scared to renumber. Addresses are not forever and when you
  design for that renumbering get easier and easier.

  For everything else there are alternate solutions.

Mark Andrews wrote:

For more, refer to the 69,000 other NANOG posts on the topic.