Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to put the effort into morphing v6 into
>> something that *IS* attractive?
> there's precious little time left to do that
Umm, Keith, we're *already* 'out' (in some sense) of IPv4 space, and have
been for a decade or more.
Given that addresses are still available for the time being, I'm not
sure what sense you mean there. (of course, without NAT we would have
reached this point years ago.)
Why do you think there are all those blasted NAT boxes out there?
Different reasons. A big one is because the commodity IPv4 connection
is a /32, and it turns out that lots of customers have reason to hook up
more than one host. Another one is that pretty much everyone uses
Windows, which has a long history of (deliberately introduced)
insecurity, and people have been duped into thinking that private
networks and NATs offer substantial protection. Groupthink is also a
big factor, I suspect. People bought NATs because their friends did.
Also, NATs spread at a time when most widely-used Internet apps were
client-server.
So the future just holds a *different* kind of 'running out of
IPv4'addresses, which, when it happens, the world will deal with in what
seems at the time to be the most cost-effective way of dealing with the
problem, even if it's ugly (q.v. NAT)
Why do you believe that the world chooses the most cost-effective
solution? As far as I can tell the market mostly engages in
hill-climbing, which rarely produces an optimal result.
Now if instead you had said people would do whatever seemed to be
easiest, without much regard to the long-term cost, I'd probably agree
with you.
Maybe I should buy stock in application hosting firms that "own"
substantial chunks of IPv4 space.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf