On Thu Aug 23 21:12:17 2007, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: Keith> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> 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. >> Keith> with 2**128 potential addresses, this is not onlyKeith> unnecessary, it's harmful. there's far greater benefit to Keith> be had by uniformity in address allocation, globally uniqueKeith> addresses, and consistent use of addresses end-to-end. I'll take ease in renumbering over application transparency for any large network.
I find this confusing as a concern - how often do you renumber? Compare this to how often you run applications which benefit from transparency. I'm pretty sure I've run FTP, for example, at least twice since I last renumbered. I've even run VOIP - another prime consumer of network transparency.
I agree that renumbering isn't a trivial exercise, but if your external address changes in NAT, it's just as painful (if not slightly more so) for externally facing services, surely? And with IPv6, doesn't renumbering get easier? (I thought it did, when I renumbered mine, and I had to do so at very short notice).
I'm quite possibly being naïve, or stupid, or all three, but I don't follow why renumbering is a sufficiently major concern that applications must suffer.
Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxx - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf