On 07/12/2013 09:28 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com <mailto:moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>> wrote:
On 07/12/2013 08:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
And before people start bringing up all the reasons I am wrong
here, first consider the fact that for many years it was IETF
ideology that NATs were a terrible thing that had to be
killed. A position I suspect was largely driven by some
aggressive lobbying by rent-seeking ISPs looking to collect
fees on a per device basis rather than per connection.
You are weakening your argument. NATs still are a terrible thing
that need to be killed. They break applications and prevent many
useful applications from being used on the Internet. That much
is more widely understood now than it was 10-15 years ago.
The Internet has less than 4 billion addresses for well over six
billion devices.
No, the Internet has approximately 2**128 addresses. NATs are a large
part of the reason that IPv6 adoption has been delayed.
I think that at this point you are the only person still making the
argument that the world should reject the easy fix for IPv4 address
exhaustion that solves their problems at negligible cost to them for
the sake of forcing them to make a transition that would be very
difficult, expensive and impact every part of the infrastructure.
You are wrong both about solving the problems and negligible cost. (And
the real issue isn't so much the cost, but who pays.)
But it would be nice if at least one of those people who argued
against me when I was making the case for NAT that has now become the
accepted approach would say 'hey Phill you were right there, I am
sorry for implying that you were an evil heretical loon for suggesting
it'. Not that I am holding my breath waiting.
If you were right, someone might say that.
Most folk here value consensus. I do not value consensus when it is wrong.
Nor do I.
Keith