Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
And, when I conclude that IPv6 is inevitable (unless someone comes
up with another scheme for global unique addresses RSN),
Here we disagree, I don't think that IPv6 is inevitable.
When I model the pressures on the various parties in the
system and consider the shortest route by which the
participants can reach their short term goals there are
certainly alternative schemes.
I certainly do not want to see these schemes deployed but
they are certainly possible outcomes. For example, a
hyperNAT where the ISP NATs residential Internet as a matter
of course. I suspect we will start to see this deployed on a
large scale as soon as the market price for IP address
allocation reaches a particular point.
There is a major difference between a NAT box plugged into
the real Internet and a NAT box plugged into another NAT
box. It is a pretty ugly one for the residential user.
I'm afraid it is already happening on a large scale in some parts. Here in
Australia I've seen multiple ISP's who NAT all residential customers. Some
of them amongst the largest players in the market. Even some commercial
offerings are on NATs.
Personally I'm more set against the wholesale blocking of ports and services
which ISPs seem to be favouring at the moment, and the pricing that is
applied to have the blocks removed. There are artificial blocks being
deployed to keep usage down that are a bigger problem than NATs IMHO.
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf