If we can meet the needs of 80% of Internet users with some form of shared access there will be more addresses left for the 20% with greater needs. I suspect that the actual percentages are more like 95% and 5%. My Internet use is certainly not typical, it is considerably more intensive than the median user. And as for the claim that I would saddle the Internet with a 1970s technology, I don't think that DNS counts. For a start the SRV record only appeared in the late 90s. It is much easier to rant against something when you don't bother to find out what it is. Still I note that Kieth is no longer opposing IPv4 NAT which is something. > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:46 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Sam Hartman; RJ Atkinson; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: The Internet 2.0 box Was: IPv6 addresses really > are scarce after all > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Why is Keith so desperately wedged on one particular means > of achieving his objective? > > > because it's by far the simplest and most reliable means available. > > It is entirely possible to make peer to peer applications > work well with NAT, it is entirely possible even to make a > server application work well with NAT. > > > it is possible. it is also much more complex to make things > work that way, much more expensive, harder to make such > applicaitons scalable, and much harder to diagnose problems > when they crop up. > > We are running out of IPv4 addresses and it is clear that > IPv6 is not going to deploy fast enough to allow people to > dispense with IPv4 before the exhaustion point is reached. > Unless someone happens to have a working time machine handy > the only plausible means of getting two billion plus users to > attach multiple devices to the IPv4 Internet is for some > devices to share an address. That means some form of NAT. > > > NAT is a given in IPv4. no argument there. > > I don't see any reason to expect that my personal Internet > needs should require more than an IPv6 /96 and an IPv4 /38. > That is 256 ports worth of pooled IPv4 connectivity. > > > there you go trying to impose your personal needs on the > entire Internet again. > > New application protocols are required to be I2.0 > compliant, that means using the DNS as their service > discovery mechanism including advertising the IPv4/v6 > transition support. > > > and I see you're also trying to saddle the entire Internet > with 1970s peer discovery technology. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf