[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Tue Aug 30 16:06:11 EDT 2011


Hi Lee,


Old work and new work on this issue:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1710.html
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346
https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560

The market, left to its own devices, has selected NAT as the pseudo-protocol of choice to facilitate virtually transparent address sharing.
I think there is work undone which would extend NAT to allow customers to have control over even multi-layer NAT and would define clear paths for multi-NAT traversal.
I believe the IETF and the registries have thwarted development in these areas because they see, correctly, that IPv6 is a superior answer to problems of address shortage.

The problem is that IPv6 has no customer demand driving transition, and has thus languished. 

I am not saying that I have a replacement successor protocol to deliver to you, but I look hungrily at the 8 bits of port number space in the header and wonder whether it is possible to effectively multiply our current space by 256, which to me would provide ample headroom and still leave 256 potential ports per address.

And this is in answer to the question posed by Mr. Vixie, which postulated a no-option endpoint at IPv6.

If I had a magic wand to wave, I would wave it and turn the Internet to IPv6 overnight, I wouldn't wave it to create a half-way protocol extension.

But we have no magic wands to wave and exhaustion of the lingua franca staring us in the face.

Regards,

Mike






  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lee Dilkie 
  To: Mike Burns 
  Cc: Paul Vixie ; arin-ppml at arin.net 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....



  On 8/30/2011 12:01 PM, Mike Burns wrote: 
    buy us enough time to come up with some kind of backward compatible successor protocol to IPv4? 

  no such thing exists... you cannot magically increase the size of addresses and be backwards compatible. Even NAT, which didn't touch the size of an address, isn't backwards compatible and broke plenty of protocols.

  You want magic or divine intervention... it doesn't exist. Only plain old hard work will get us to our mundane goals of moving to ipv6. There's really nothing to be gained by wishing otherwise.

  -lee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110830/4f726e5d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list