Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!

From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:36:57 -0000

->-----Original Message-----
->From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[email-masked]]
->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:41 AM
->To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [email-masked]
->Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
->
->
  The household will perform NAT for 
->all devices
->within (one street address can house many people, not just one).

.. and lose out on e2e connectivity ?? 
imho, primary v6 address arch
was to negate the NAT bottleneck..and of course
v4 address exhaustion

---

From: Tim Salo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:53:25 -0500 (CDT)

> From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:36:57 -0000 
> 
> ->The household will perform NAT for all devices
> 	[...]

Geeks like us care about end-to-end transparency.  Refrigerator's don't.

Most people are going to buy products based on the functions they
perform (utility), not on their architecture.  If someone develops
a nice household/Internet gateway that does something useful (and
doesn't require a UNIX administrator), people will buy it, regardless
of whether it performs some politically/religiously incorrect protocol
transformations.

And, if IPvX addresses cost money, a lot of households will pay money
for devices that enable them to operate with only one IP address.

(We now return you to discussions about how AOL can't claim to be
part of the Internet...)

-tjs

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 20:44:10 -0400

> Geeks like us care about end-to-end transparency.  Refrigerator's don't.

NATs cause a lot more problems than the loss of transparency.
see http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html

> of whether it performs some politically/religiously incorrect protocol

true enough...but they will insist that the product work as advertised.
and if households have NATs in them, the number of things that those 
products can do will be considerably reduced.  hence the number of
products available, and the utility of a household network connection,
will also be reduced.

> for devices that enable them to operate with only one IP address.

true enough, at least if the addresses cost more than the NAT box.
but if you have to have a NAT box then the money you spend is
for the purpose of making your network less functional.
personally, I'd rather get something useful for my money.

folks who think this is a religious argument aren't paying attention.

but the bottom line is that we need to make sure that

a) IPv6 address blocks of reasonable size have near-zero cost
b) NATs aren't part of IPv6

Keith

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 20:13:54 +1000

Date:        Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:53:25 -0500 (CDT)
    From:        Tim Salo <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Geeks like us care about end-to-end transparency.  Refrigerator's don't.

Refrigerators don't care about connectivity at all.   They don't care
about anything at all.   Refrigerator owners care about connectivity,
and even geeks can be refrigerator owners.   Personally I want my
refrigerator to have end to end transparency (I'd care less about the
toaster, doing anything useful to that when not physically close is
harder to imagine).

  | And, if IPvX addresses cost money, a lot of households will pay money
  | for devices that enable them to operate with only one IP address.

True.   However there's no reason to assume that it will be possible to
get less than a (very large really) block of addresses, so if you pay for
the one, you're going to get a lot to go along with it.

There's no question but that address assignment and management costs, and
needs to be paid for, and as with anything, it is the end consumers who
pay in the end (everyone else just passes along the costs, whether they're
separately listed, or just bundled in an overall price for service).
However, with IPv6 there's no longer the need for the rationing push on
prices that exists in IPv4.  It costs a certain amount to perform an
assignment (and record it, etc) - it doesn't really matter how big the
assignment is, with IPv6 there should be no differentiated costs for
address assignments based upon size.

kre