[ppml] Big numbers

[McBurnett, Jim]

Without opening up too many cans of worms:
NAT Traversal within companies that have merged and
then share the same RFC1918 address can work...
Albeit with its own pain...
It can be said that anything can be MADE to work... But will is scale?
I can even make a 12 year old Radio Shack Multimeter IP addressable, but
will is scale?


Second: There are at least 2 organizations, that I personnaly have knowledge of,
that use RW addresses on 95% of all their systems RIGHT NOW as I type this.
One has a large # of Class B's and one has several Class A's.
Having worked for one of them, I can say that that had it's issues too...
No matter what we say here and now and where we think we need to be going,
we will look back on this topic as old thinking 5 or 10 years from now.
I, for one, think we should start pushing every provider to start working
on the v6 implementations, and "get along little doggie." 
Nothing we talk about will give us the experience to do the untested except to do it!!!

I have seen many electonics projects come and go and many a systems theorized, but until
the voltage met the IC, did the theory prove right or wrong.

Let's put a plan togather, right or wrong, and test it.

Automated IP assignment from scripting? I know it is being done at a large # of ISP's.
They have some knowledge. Put that to work.

Rerouting v4, it is being done now. Cisco, Juniper, and others, speak up, 
make an IETF commitee reccomendation to the RIR's.

Nothing is worse than indecisiveness in a time when actions will do more to
further the development of Interconnectivity.....

I see 2 arguments here:
If we keep waiting for IPv6 to be setup, then it might be to late.

and 

IANA has over 25 Class A networks that are not even in use, why worry now, the DOT COM
BOMB is OVER........


We can put off this change as long as we want, but WE as the community all know how much of
a pain renumbering is. Would you rather do it sooner, with less IPv4 addresses to renumber or later
with far more work?  IPv6, according to some, should stop the need of renumbering........


Anyway, as Forrest Gump said:" That's all I Got to say about that"



J





Brian, 


On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 04:25 PM, Brian Bergin wrote: 
With NAT technology getting better and better do you really think every TV and toaster needs a public IP address?  


Need? Probably not. It would, however, be nice to not have to deal with the complications NAT cause. 


Every individual and company already has access to millions of private IPs under IPv4.  


The problem is, they are the same millions. Not a big deal for individuals (today), but it can be/is a problem for companies, particularly large ones that merge. 


Encouraging the use of public IPs on devices/computers with absolutely NO need to be on the public Internet is only going to allow hackers to ruin your holiday dinner when they hack your oven and change the temp to 600°F and you get burnt turkey or they turn off your furnace or turn off your water heater when it's -20°F outside.  


NAT != Firewall. 


Any way you look at it, putting an IP on "every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystems elements" is a bad idea, IMHO.... 


Having each device being uniquely identifiable (if not identified) makes integration of those devices much easier. 


Maybe I'm just missing the big picture.  Conservation, IMHO, just isn't that crucial for IPv6.  


This was, in fact, my point. 


I remember when IPv4 was going to be gone "tomorrow" or "next year" only a couple years ago.  I believe NAT has had a big part in the life extension of IPv4. 


No question. 


Rgds, 
-drc