Re: Why?
2005-03-13 06:25:37
At 13:09 13/03/2005, Noel Chiappa wrote:
So, yeah, it *is* easier to deploy first and then later make incremental
modifications for scalability - if you like NAT.
May I venture a silly question? What is a NAT today?
I prefer speaking of coreboxes with (among others) a NAT service (*) (as
edge smart boxes opposed to middleboxes) and of telemates or endboxes for a
non host boxes (sensors, actuators, appliances, etc.).
There are 3 billions telephones,1.3 billions mobiles, 3 billions of TV, 4
billions of radio listeners. Each of them needs an IPv6 address today with
10 to 1000 extensions to support their SNHN (small network/home network)
and their "endboxes". Only IPv6, as an IPv4 with longer address" can
support them. In that sense I understand IPv6 as the scalability of the
initial IPv4 deployment (this has actually nothing todo with IPv6, just
with the availability of the numbers for the necessary scaling and
directory/routing organization).
Obviously a "user" point of view. Where am I wrong?
jfc
PS (*) as many other services like firewall, application protection, email
servers, local NIC and nameservers, OPES, webserver, backup manager, CVS,
creditcard transaction, encryption, etc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
RE: Why?, Michel Py
RE: Why?, Michel Py
RE: Why?, Michel Py
Re: Why?, Noel Chiappa
- Re: Why?,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <=
- Re: Why?, Keith Moore
RE: Why?, Michel Py
Re: FW: Why?, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
Re: Why?, Noel Chiappa
Re: Why?, Brian E Carpenter
|
|
|