<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffcc text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Lee,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Old work and new work on this issue:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1710.html">http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1710.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346</A></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560">https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560</A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The market, left to its own devices, has selected
NAT as the pseudo-protocol of choice to facilitate virtually transparent address
sharing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The problem is that IPv6 has no customer demand
driving transition, and has thus languished. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>And this is in answer to the question posed by Mr.
Vixie, which postulated a no-option endpoint at IPv6.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But we have no magic wands to wave and exhaustion
of the lingua franca staring us in the face.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Lee@Dilkie.com href="mailto:Lee@Dilkie.com">Lee Dilkie</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@nationwideinc.com
href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">Mike Burns</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=paul@redbarn.org
href="mailto:paul@redbarn.org">Paul Vixie</A> ; <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:19
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] An article of
interest to the community....</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>On 8/30/2011 12:01 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:8ED2D34B24014C23AA5F029110C39DD3@mike type="cite">buy
us enough time to come up with some kind of backward compatible successor
protocol to IPv4? </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>-lee<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>