It might be a market.
It might well be something more Darwinian.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme(_at_)multicasttech(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:46 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: David Conrad; Mark Andrews; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Domain Centric Administration, RE:
draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt
On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: David Conrad [mailto:drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org]
I am also a bit confused how a "dual stack" transition strategy to
IPv6 is going to work when the IPv4 address free pool is
exhausted in
a few years without some form of NAT/ALG, but maybe that's just me.
Perhaps the idea here is that when the IPv4 pool is
exhausted, people
will be forced to use IPv6.
If so it comes from the same school of politics that led
folk to say
'IF NXT means that DNSSEC can't be deployed in .com that's a good
thing because it will force people to reduce the size of
.com'. That
is an actual quote from a real DNSEXT meeting.
Its not going to work that way. All we will end up with is
hyper-NAT.
And a Market in IPv4 addresses, which will certainly develop
as IPv4 exhaustion nears.
Regards
Marshall
_______________________________________________
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