o'dell's GSE draft addressed renumbering perfectly.
In message
<5(_dot_)0(_dot_)2(_dot_)1(_dot_)2(_dot_)20010123015631(_dot_)02bbba30(_at_)localhost>,
"David R. Conrad" typ
ed:
Kyle,
At 03:53 AM 1/23/2001 -0500, Kyle Lussier wrote:
It is a horried idea to start setting up NATs on cell phones,
Hmm. We should probably tell that to the existing 17+ million users of
i-Mode in Japan. Better hurry as i-Mode is moving into Europe.
(I liked the ip addressible coffee machine I saw that you could
telnet into). Do you really want to put and configure a NAT in
your coffee maker?
I would imagine that you'd have a household gateway/NAT, not a NAT on every
device in your household (and I'd argue if you have to configure anything
network related on your coffee maker other than perhaps its name, something
is seriously wrong).
As the pain of limited IP address space tightens we'll move more
and more to IPv6 and it'll level itself out.
IPv6 is not a magic wand. Because v6 uses provider based addressing,
non-transit providers will still need to renumber in v6 as they do in
v4. Renumbering can be expensive. NATs are seen by many enterprises as a
way of removing the need to renumber should they change providers. Until
the issue of renumbering is addressed, NATs will not go away.
Rgds,
-drc
cheers
jon