On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Keith Moore wrote: > one of the areas in which I think the IPv4 design failed is that it > didn't really follow the catenet model. it was not possible to extend > the network from any point. and this is part of what led to NATs, > because there really was a need to be able to do that. I strongly agree, and would add that: 1. Provider independent addresses are really important to a lot of people, especially those responsible for bunches of machines (or for running servers). Without them, something like NAT is guaranteed to persist, in order to minimize cost and disruption of renumbering, or being held hostage by a provider. 2. Essentially free addresses are really important to a lot of people, especially anyone responsible for bunches of machines... Without them, something like NAT is guaranteed to persist, in order to minimize cost. Sounds like the "scarcity-based" v6 allocation policies (and any constraints on who can get PI addresses) will guarantee IETFer's worst nightmare: v6 NATs forever. -teg _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf