[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to somecategoryof organization

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Is this an assumption that NAT will be present forever?

I have a 1 year old home receiver.  It replaced a 30 year old
home receiver, and does the same thing the old one did.  I
only replaced it because the old one wouldn't take a fiber
input from my new HDTV.  I'll be quite pissed if the assumption
is that it will be obsoleted in 3 years!!!

I would be willing to bet that Owen's receiver will outlast
the IPv4 runout.  I'll also be willing to bet that he won't
have a proverbial snowballs chance in hell of ever getting a
firmware update from the manufacturer to make it IPv6
compliant.

All the more reason for something like this proposed ban!
In the home receiver market it may only have "political"
significance, but that matters!

Ted

George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
> Owen, I thought about this sort of thing (I have a similar receiver) but didn't think it worth mentioning because step one is that the user must be asking for public IPs from ARIN, which a home user will not be doing. I highly doubt that you (or the manufacturer) ever intended it to have a public IP address and be world-reachable, and therefore it's unlikely that [insert HT maker or big-box electronics retailer here] is going to show up asking for multiple /8s to address them. It gets a 1918 address just like all the rest of the devices in your home LAN, and is perfectly happy with it. If you REALLY want it publicly accessible, you enable port forwarding, etc.
> 
> If embedded devices all lived behind a SOHO router (and its associated NAT), using the existing public IPv4 address that has been allocated for the broadband connection, we wouldn't have a problem, except in the places where the meter uses its own connectivity (wireless usually) or it's otherwise not feasible to put the embedded device on an existing network.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Wes
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:48 AM
> To: George, Wes E [NTK]
> Cc: Scott Leibrand; James Hess; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to somecategoryof organization
> 
> Is my home theater amplifier a server?
> 
> It answers on port 80 and provides an interface for controlling the
> amplifier.
> 
> Owen
> 
> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.