Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> Many internet-connected enterprises have been willing to pay >> extra money to have fixed IP addresses, and, worse, independent >> global routing table entries for multihoming, to reliably >> maintain the end to end transparency to reach their servers. > > Earlier comments on this list indicated that there are ~40K > enterprises that have chosen to incur these costs. I'm afraid the number is too large, which will make the Internet, regardless of whether it is IPv4 or IPv6 based, collapse. > How many enterprises have chosen to use IPv4 NAT instead? Most of them, if I don't underestimate how large the Internet is. All of them should be happy with IPv4 NAT with the end to end transparency. Masataka Ohta