ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why people by NATs

2004-11-26 18:36:51
At 00:47 27/11/2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 17:08 26/11/2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:

On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 10:11 +0100, Leif Johansson wrote:
> > For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost of
> > IP renumbering would be twenty times larger.  Given this, how could
> > anyone wonder why NAT is popular?
>
> Wrong. If you administer 100's or 1000s of machines you build or buy
> a system for doing address management. Renumbering is only difficult
> if your system is called vi :-)

Wrong ;) Well at least, up to 1000 is probably doable.
But what if you are talking about 100s or 1000s of organizations with
each a 100 or 1000 machines.

Organization/Management and actually finding out who is doing what in
such a big environment is the problem. (Of course the people who where
'managing' this network should have seen it coming sooner or later, but
they already left of course).

Whatever the tool you use it will only simplify the complexity, but the rule will stay the same: the chance of problems in a network change is proportional to the number of relations between the concerned nodes. Also decentralized changes are more easily managed but more support demanding. So the larger the network the more untrained people (from a lot of different departments and entities) are involved, problems will be in proportion to the power of this involvement. You can reduce that proportion, but the power will bit you.

But why to spend time and money and to take risks to change something which is not broken. IPv6 has no problem in keeping the same host numbers if the used addressing plan uses a numbering scheme designed with that purpose in mind, like the telephone numbering scheme. You change of telephone providers - or use several at the same time - without changing number. If you separate routing from designation (same Host ID, whatever the Network ID) you do not have to change and can be on different ISPs at the same time. There are 6 plans to permit at least one to do that; I understand the one the ITU plans to manage will permit this?
jfc




Greets,
 Jeroen


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>