Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If we can meet the needs of 80% of Internet users with some form of shared
access there will be more addresses left for the 20% with greater needs.
with 2**128 potential addresses, this is not only unnecessary, it's
harmful. there's far greater benefit to be had by uniformity in address
allocation, globally unique addresses, and consistent use of addresses
And as for the claim that I would saddle the Internet with a 1970s
technology, I don't think that DNS counts. For a start the SRV record only
appeared in the late 90s. It is much easier to rant against something when
you don't bother to find out what it is.
DNS is the Achilles heel of the Internet. it's way too unreliable, too
hard to configure correctly, too often out-of-sync with the real world.
it's not extensible enough. practical DNS security might finally be
here - I'm trying to keep an open mind about that - but I'll be a
believer when I see it widely deployed. and in practice there's a huge
amount of DNS abuse - e.g. multifaced servers that return inconsistent
results depending on who is asking. basically DNS is not the sort of
thing you want to saddle every application in the Internet with, and
there are significant incentives for applications to take whatever DNS
says with a grain of salt.
Still I note that Kieth is no longer opposing IPv4 NAT which is something.
well, I would hope we've learned our (rather painful) lesson. but it
seems that some of us have not.
but the only reason I don't oppose IPv4 NAT is that I recognize that
IPv4 is a dinosaur. it's too late to fix it.
Ietf mailing list