This part scares the hell out of me:
"...Customers could, for example, receive an initial fixed port range, defined by the operator, and dynamically request additional blocks, depending on their contract. ..."
What about legacy software that decides what port it is going to use?
Well their packets go to the wrong hardware? Seems a BIG security hold to me.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Dec 10, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care about IPv4
> anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF.
This is why I was so surprised by the controversy. SighUnfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the best way to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6 'better' and to sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage.So we had the campaign against NAT, even though it was obviously benefiting people economically. With 80 nodes on my internal net, I would be paying several thousand dollars a year to have static IPs for each (not to mention depriving others of Internet access). In fact my ISP now requires me to run NAT.In hindsight 32 bits was exactly the wrong size. If IPv4 had been 16 bits we would have run out of address space long, long ago when the cost of transition was not so prohibitive - there would only be 65K nodes to change(!).The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old strategy. Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the same so that the transition cost is minimal.