[ppml] Dynamic IPs and IP runout
mack at exchange.alphared.com
Wed Aug 22 23:16:37 EDT 2007
This is sure to create a firestorm so flame away:
The biggest consumer of IPs is for end workstations.
These could be converted to NAT but there is currently no incentive to do so.
My home ISP still allocates dynamic ips for each DSL modem.
On the other hand most of these end users are concerned with services available
on the internet ie. smtp, ftp, http, https, IM,
voip (which has various implementation some of which don't work well with NAT).
These service for the most part don't work with both parties behind NAT.
Additionally, high BW http sites can't be easily placed behind NAT due to flow
limitations on network equipment.
Some cable providers have already converted to NAT and I routinely deal with
double NAT issues at work from end users.
No one who does actual networking likes NAT, but I think more home users should be
pushed behind it.
Obviously some home users operate home businesses and such.
We all have sidelines. Therefore if this direction is headed we need to provide exceptions.
If most users were placed behind NAT they wouldn't notice (except the ones running
bit torrent, slingbox and VOIP). Most of my relatives use two applications
http and smtp (ie. web and e-mail) and wouldn't recognize the acronyms.
Most businesses don't use much else either and they restrict bit torrent and the like.
Perhaps we should be pushing reclamation efforts this direction.
I know the legacy blocks look nice and juicy but the fact is home users are a softer target.
Someone from ARIN may have figures on how many IPs are assigned to user boxes and how many provide services.
It would be nice if they shared to determine if this direction has merit.
LR Mack McBride
Alpha Red, Inc.
More information about the ARIN-PPML