> From: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> Sorry Noel but I choice to reply public to this one.
Ah, no, actually. Had you thought about it for a moment or two, you could
have realized that you could have made your point just as well without
publicly quoting my private email. But why am I not surprised?
> It all boils down to RFC1918 space, there are 3 huge network blocks
> there ... I can't really see what difference another /10 will make
> really, especially now that we're in essence out of IPv4 addresses.
The issue is not whether it _can_ be made to work (in Milo's famous phrase,
'with enough thrust, anything will fly'). The issue is all about costs and
benefits.
Speaking of the costs, if we assign a block of size N, it's not as if N
people are not going to be able to get on the network as a result. To the
contrary, N*M people are going to be able to get on the network as a result.
Of course, the N would have had globally visible addresses, whereas the N*M
will not, but that dropoff in functionality does not seem to bother most
people: pretty much every wireless hub I've ever seen is also a NAT box. (I'm
not even sure if there's even a way to turn off the NAT functionality in the
one in our house - I don't recall one.) Given that most people are happy to
take the choice 'limited access is preferable to no access' in the wireless
case, I see no reason to doubt that they would, were they able to explicitly
make the choice, make the same choice here.
Allowing more people access to the Internet is a problem... how?
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf