The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make lemonade.
Right. Maybe time to accept that we have a real life "Interpatch" to use, and to start considering the best way to make it. One does not build the world: one survives in it. However, may be the problem is the IETF promotes an "IPv4 with larger addresses" (Huitema, Aaron).
These 12 years shown that the world does not want another IPv4. It already has another one with NATs. But it wants larger addresses, for many reasons which have nothing to do with IP. As Harald says, let stop considering IPv6 has an IETF matter. It is now up to the Govs, ITU, Corporations, operators, etc. to work on the numbering plans they want for the NGN.
At 00:19 17/11/2004, grenville armitage wrote: >Noel Chiappa wrote: > >The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really > > out there, not the network some of us wish were there. > I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types said much the > same thing to the emerging packet-switching fanatics 30+ years > ago. And I know B-ISDN types said the same to "Internet fanatics" 15+ > years ago.
Yes. This is what _you_ say that to NGN types today. :-)
Let follow on this: the telephone system they implemented in the 70s was not the one imagined in the 40s. But it used its numbering plan (may be the dates are different from one place to another, but the comparison holds).
X.121 said 14 digits, up to 20 with OSI and a maximum of 32. ITU says that the core of the NGN, wich needs that 32 digits, is IP. Great! IPv6 will not be used because the IPv6 TF will promote it, but because it is the only IP available possibility. Not glorious, but useful and propably more efficient. Who is still using an operator (that you could compare to NAT) when telephoning ?
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf