[arin-ppml] Just a reminder of some quick mathematicsfor IPv4that shows the long term impossibility of it

[William Herrin]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Chris Grundemann
<cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that perpetuating IPv4 removes my
> choice. If someone is able to force us to continue using IPv4 through
> the policy that they set and the technology they adopt, then they have
> relegated us to using NAT - whether it makes sense in a particular
> situation or not. I believe this is the point that most have tried to
> make in this thread; not that you have to give up NAT but rather that
> you should not be allowed to force NAT on me.

Chris,

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You should be allowed to force IPv6 on me
(direct, first-order effect) because my continued use of IPv4 coupled
with the general shortage of IPv4 addresses would eventually force you
to use NAT. (indirect third-order effect).

The argument fails. You've not demonstrated that the harm and expense
from the uses of NAT which would plausibly end with the ubiquity of
IPv6 outweighs the harm and expense of a forced migration to IPv6.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004