Jelte Jansen wrote: > Given that address translation needs things like > CGN, STUN, uPnP and portforwarding to get the most basic of things > working, Wrong. While uPnP involves end systems a little, they hide address translation from the end systems, which is why they destroy the end to end transparency (with uPnP, there can be the end to end transparency for applications over TCP or UDP). > I think the whole picture gives you less privacy and security > than a completely untranslated end-to-end world does. The amount of privacy is same. It is merely that ISPs must have more log, as long as they assign address/port dynamically on demand. But, if ISPs assign one of their customer an address and a range of port numbers, the amount of log is same. That is, assigning a customer 192.0.2.1 is not very different from assigning the customer port 1024 to 1279 of 192.0.2.1. Masataka Ohta > > BTW, now that Microsoft is finally feeling some actual pain due to a > lack of new addresses in their azure cloud, perhaps there is some hope > that some big parties are finally starting to move. > > BTW2, tbh i think calling it 32 vs 64/128 bits 'internet' will make it > even more confusing. I'd prefer something like 'ye olde obsolete > adressing'. > > Jelte > > >