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

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

On 5/17/11 11:33 AM, "Chris Engel" <cengel at conxeo.com> wrote:

>
>FWIW, I'm still waiting for some-one to explain exactly how any of this
>has jack-all to do with number resource policy?
>
>Christopher Engel
>(representing only my own views)

This is the one thing we agree on.  RFC 1918 was implemented to address a
resource starvation problem.  We don't have that with IPv6, so we don't
need a similar RFC for IPv6.  If anyone says differently, they haven't
read the RFC.  

If you want to NAT your NAT's NATs, go right ahead.  I said the same thing
to the Netware guys about IPX/SPX routing 15 years ago.  You can only
fight the "where are they now file" for some finite period of time. You
get to pick what finite is for your environment.

Mike