A vision IPv6 is properly design to support. The problem acknowledged by Michel Py and Steve Crocker, and others, mainly comes from the "a la IPv4" management of the IPv6 addressing plan. Innovation is blocked there. This is to do with ICANN's IANA and numbering plan organization and intergovernance, not with IPv6.
Please read Mr. Zhao's contribution drafts for ITU on the matter if you find one (I understand that he plans releasing his position by mid-November?). You document THE main need for IPv6: to permit a flexible management of tier and tier universal relations. For a while NAT helped a lot - and will continue and improve - at intranet level. But end-users need much more: a full control, that only IPv6 can deliver, as you show it. When an adequate IPv6 addressing plan is offered and used by end-users, NATs will disappear as useless, costly and obsolete constraints.
You cannot change things on the internet, you can only improve them and make them obsolete.
jfc
At 03:31 07/11/2004, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx writes:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:38:21 PST, Tony Hain said:
>
>> all space currently considered lost. Given that IANA allocated 9 /8's over a
>> 6 month period this year, coupled with the fact that only 78 /8's remain in
>> the useful part of the pool (ie: 52 month burn out),
> They said that just before CIDR happened, too.
We are already out of addresses. I cannot easily connect from my laptop in my apartment (behind a NAT) with a friend's laptop in his apartment (because it is also behind a NAT). This makes quickly transferring pictures or documents from my machine to a friend's machine a pain in the neck.
We ran out of addresses for practical purposes years ago. Anyone who is running a NAT is doing so because it was easier to do that than to try to get address space.
Perry
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf