Keith, read my words, I choose them more carefully than you imagine.
solves their problems at negligible cost TO THEM
What part of that do you disagree with? I don't dispute the fact that NAT
is a suboptimal solution if we look at the system as a whole. But the
reason I deployed NAT in my house was that Roadrunner wanted $10 extra per
month for every device I connected to a maximum of 4. I have over 200 IP
enabled devices in my house.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>wrote:
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>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
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/