If we can meet the needs of 80% of Internet users with some form of shared
access there will be more addresses left for the 20% with greater needs.
I suspect that the actual percentages are more like 95% and 5%.
My Internet use is certainly not typical, it is considerably more intensive
than the median user.
And as for the claim that I would saddle the Internet with a 1970s technology,
I don't think that DNS counts. For a start the SRV record only appeared in the
late 90s. It is much easier to rant against something when you don't bother to
find out what it is.
Still I note that Kieth is no longer opposing IPv4 NAT which is something.
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:46 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Sam Hartman; RJ Atkinson; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: The Internet 2.0 box Was: IPv6 addresses really
are scarce after all
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Why is Keith so desperately wedged on one particular means
of achieving his objective?
because it's by far the simplest and most reliable means available.
It is entirely possible to make peer to peer applications
work well with NAT, it is entirely possible even to make a
server application work well with NAT.
it is possible. it is also much more complex to make things
work that way, much more expensive, harder to make such
applicaitons scalable, and much harder to diagnose problems
when they crop up.
We are running out of IPv4 addresses and it is clear that
IPv6 is not going to deploy fast enough to allow people to
dispense with IPv4 before the exhaustion point is reached.
Unless someone happens to have a working time machine handy
the only plausible means of getting two billion plus users to
attach multiple devices to the IPv4 Internet is for some
devices to share an address. That means some form of NAT.
NAT is a given in IPv4. no argument there.
I don't see any reason to expect that my personal Internet
needs should require more than an IPv6 /96 and an IPv4 /38.
That is 256 ports worth of pooled IPv4 connectivity.
there you go trying to impose your personal needs on the
entire Internet again.
New application protocols are required to be I2.0
compliant, that means using the DNS as their service
discovery mechanism including advertising the IPv4/v6
transition support.
and I see you're also trying to saddle the entire Internet
with 1970s peer discovery technology.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf