On Apr 5, 2012, at 7:33 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not clear that the market cares enough
about end-to-end transparency to fund the development of
NPTv6 or IPv4 NAT-aware end-nodes, because while end-to-end
transparency is something that we in the IETF hold dear, it
does not have enough practical value for Internet-connected
enterprises that they have been willing to incur any cost or
inconvenience to maintain it. In fact, in many cases, they
prefer _not_ to have it.
Many internet-connected enterprises have been willing to pay
extra money to have fixed IP addresses, and, worse, independent
global routing table entries for multihoming, to reliably
maintain the end to end transparency to reach their servers.
Earlier comments on this list indicated that there are ~40K enterprises that
have chosen to incur these costs.
How many enterprises have chosen to use IPv4 NAT instead?