NATing IPv6

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

Rob Hasselbaum <rob-IdUdaS/NwSyQrzRDRVclEQ at public.gmane.org> noted:
>  I suspect
> if it weren't for NAT, consumers would be paying their ISPs "per-node"
> connection fees. If things move in that direction in a mostly-IPv6 world, we
> could see a resurgence of NAT.

Exactly.  Back before the "Chicago School" economists took over the economy,
giving us the 2-year contract for things like iPhones and dismantling
anti-trust law, the courts stepped in and populated our homes with RJ-11
jacks.  Until those came along, only the phone company could wire anything
into your service, and they charged extra for everything you plugged in.

Now adays the cable companies and cell providers are doing things the old
pre-1984 Ma Bell way.  If you want multiple IP addresses (NAT or otherwise)
tethered to your iPhone, you pay.  If Google wants to implement its "don't be
evil" tethering policy for Android phones, it has to go up against the same
Chicago-School-backed execs at Verizon and AT&T who want to absorb Sprint and
T-Mobile into the Borg.

Maybe someday enough of us will say enough already.  Meanwhile we have to
perpetuate hacks like NAT in our efforts to bypass corporate annoyance.

-rich
P.S.  Does anyone think it really costs Visa or Amex more than $.00013 to
process a debit transaction, in their pursuit of the Paypal market...I could
go on...;-)