On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44:42PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> This is only about allocating a chunk of address space. > > For which there is better use than prolonging bad technical solutions. > > Address translation has set the state of consumer computing back severely. > It might be all nice and proper according to those who desire to keep the > power of owning a TV transmitter, a printing press or a transaction broker > service. > > Do keep in mind that the real driver in IP technology is the ability > for end-nodes to communicate in a manner they chose without prior > coordination with some kind of protocol gateway. NAT and more so CGN > explicitly disables this key feature. > > And this is not what the IETF should be doing. The IETF should seek > to maximise the technical capabilities of the Internet protocol > suite so that it may continue to enable new uses of the key feature, > ie. end-node reachability. > > Allocating CGN-blessing address space is a clear violation of this. Is that true? And if so, why and how can it be formulated or find support it earlier work? And if it is not true. Why and where do you find support for that view? I ask because you might touch something quite fundamental there... can IETF support something that will break/limit reachability on Internet. -- Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@xxxxxxxxx | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no ; | roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf