MrChupacabra
Premium
join:2003-03-26
Florida
 ·Bright House
| reply to Joe12345678
Re: Found this interesting...
From what I've understood from IPv6 is there is still a segment of the IP range for private (internal) use.
So where is NAT going exactly? 
--
If it's worth saying, it is worth saying politely |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to Joe12345678
not if you use a router or hell a linux box with 2 nics in it
thall never know |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to MrChupacabra
said by MrChupacabra  :Why charge per system? You're still limited to the total up and down speeds no matter how many systems you run. We'll still only support one PC to the modem though.  if they get rid of nat then you may have to pay per ip and 1 system = 1 ip |
|
MrChupacabra
Premium
join:2003-03-26
Florida
·Bright House
| reply to Joe12345678
Why charge per system? You're still limited to the total up and down speeds no matter how many systems you run. We'll still only support one PC to the modem though.
--
If it's worth saying, it is worth saying politely |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity :"E-router: Related to this is the e-router, a developing spec that will turn the 3.0 modem into a router and do away with the NAT (network address translation) headache. NAT, in existing routers, makes it difficult if not impossible for operators to manage services that hang off the home network. With the e-router, a subnet can be applied in the home that is made more powerful with IPv6 address spacing. "In the old days, DOCSIS was a bridge. Today, the notion is that 3.0 becomes a router that's more in tune with the market and the data that we'll be pushing around," says TI's Peter Percosan. " that sounds like it will give the cable providers a easy way to make you pay per system hooked up the the modem and if you try to by pass it they can pull the same legal tricks as they did to the people who uncapped there modem. |
|
