Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > That's the popular view. In reality, people deployed NAT mostly for > reasons that have little to do with the global IPv4 address > depletion. They deployed it mainly because getting an IPv4 address costs money, and involves considerable red tape. Mainly because it costs money. > The future just doesn't want to honor the principle of least > astonishment: what we expect to change, often stays the same, while > what we expect to stay the same, more often than not changes. Yes, this is the problem faced by all futurists, including those who work in IT. The only thing that one can reliably predict is the unknown. > Everyone who thinks that regular users are going to forego IPv4 > connectivity in favor of IPv6 connectivity as long as IPv4 still > works to a remotely usable degree is a card carrying member of the > Internet Fantasy Task Force*. Yes. Even I don't plan to do so unless my ISP forces the issue; the change would bring me nothing and would cost time and money to implement. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf