Re: The Internet 2.0 box Was: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 24-aug-2007, at 17:28, David Conrad wrote:

If you obtain address space from a service provider and you decide to change providers, you have (in most cases) two options: renumber or deploy NAT.

Nonsense.

Assuming you're not going to take the address space with you (which is not a given, btw), there's no way to avoid renumbering. If you use NAT with RFC 1918 addresses internally the renumbering is limited to stuff outside your internal network. And this is the hard part anyway. But if you don't use NAT adopting NAT means you'll have to renumber internally as well because someone else will be using your old addresses in the future so you can't keep using them internally.

I think it's time that the ietf@xxxxxxxx filters flag all messages with the word "NAT" in it as spam. NAT discussions are always fruitless: we're not going to get rid of it in the IPv4 world and using it even more than today won't fix any of our problems, so NAT is orthogonal to any high-level IETF discussion.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]