Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Many internet-connected enterprises have been willing to pay
extra money to have fixed IP addresses, and, worse, independent
global routing table entries for multihoming, to reliably
maintain the end to end transparency to reach their servers.
Earlier comments on this list indicated that there are ~40K
enterprises that have chosen to incur these costs.
I'm afraid the number is too large, which will make the Internet,
regardless of whether it is IPv4 or IPv6 based, collapse.
How many enterprises have chosen to use IPv4 NAT instead?
Most of them, if I don't underestimate how large the Internet is.
All of them should be happy with IPv4 NAT with the end to end
transparency.
Masataka Ohta