Sam Hartman wrote:
"Keith" == Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Keith> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> 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.
>>
Keith> with 2**128 potential addresses, this is not only
Keith> unnecessary, it's harmful. there's far greater benefit to
Keith> be had by uniformity in address allocation, globally unique
Keith> addresses, and consistent use of addresses end-to-end.
I'll take ease in renumbering over application transparency for any
large network.
Fair point. Though I actually think what we really need is a layer of
indirection at the BGP level so that sites can have stable addresses
without having to NAT.
I don't try to keep up with BGP but I thought at one time that I saw a
proposal for an extension to BGP to do something very similar to this.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf