[arin-ppml] Just a reminder of some quick mathematics for IPv4 that shows the long term impossibility of it
owen at delong.com
Fri May 13 05:58:35 EDT 2011
On May 12, 2011, at 9:27 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 5/12/2011 4:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 12, 2011, at 3:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>>>> So how exactly do we get the other 4.5 billion people on the Internet
>>>> using IPv4?
>>> Survey says: NAT.
>> That does not put the other 4.5 billion people on the internet.
> I think he was making a joke, Owen. Meaning that the "average person"
> if they are told a little bit about IPv4 runout they think "NAT can handle it"
I doubt he was joking. Bill is a rather strong proponent of the idea that
NAT works just fine. He even seems to believe it is a security feature.
>> That might put
>> the other 4.5 billion people onto a carefully controlled subset of the internet.
>> I do not advocate inflicting this damage on what would become the vast
>> majority of internet users. Rather, I think it is vastly better to deploy them
>> with IPv6 and let the rest of the internet catch up.
> You cannot grow the Internet to be 3 times larger than it is now
> on RFC1918 numbers. The problem is the average person thinks of an
> IP address like a telephone number. They see the phone companies
> throw phone numbers around willy nilly. They don't understand that
> the two systems are completely different.
I think we're saying the same thing, though I'm not entirely convinced
about your reasoning above.
>>>> But, don't let something like mathematics bog your day down!
>>> Or technology either it would seem.
>> One man's "technology" is another man's nightmare.
> I think he meant that from a technological standpoint the proposition
> is impossible.
No, he was claiming that the technology (NAT) would make it possible.
Bill and I have a long history of debating the lack of merit of NAT.
More information about the ARIN-PPML