[ppml] Big numbers

David Conrad david.conrad at nominum.com
Tue Apr 8 12:45:24 EDT 2003


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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1602 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030408/d288796a/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list