Subject: Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:53:00 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    >> Wouldn't it make more sense to put the effort into morphing v6 into
    >> something that *IS* attractive?

    > there's precious little time left to do that

Umm, Keith, we're *already* 'out' (in some sense) of IPv4 space, and have
been for a decade or more.

Why do you think there are all those blasted NAT boxes out there?

So the future just holds a *different* kind of 'running out of IPv4'
addresses, which, when it happens, the world will deal with in what seems at
the time to be the most cost-effective way of dealing with the problem, even
if it's ugly (q.v. NAT).

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:13:49 -0400

> been for a decade or more.
Given that addresses are still available for the time being, I'm not
sure what sense you mean there.  (of course, without NAT we would have
reached this point years ago.)
> Why do you think there are all those blasted NAT boxes out there?
Different reasons.  A big one is because the commodity IPv4 connection
is a /32, and it turns out that lots of customers have reason to hook up
more than one host.  Another one is that pretty much everyone uses
Windows, which has a long history of (deliberately introduced)
insecurity, and people have been duped into thinking that private
networks and NATs offer substantial protection.  Groupthink is also a
big factor, I suspect.  People bought NATs because their friends did. 
Also, NATs spread at a time when most widely-used Internet apps were
client-server.
> So the future just holds a *different* kind of 'running out of IPv4'addresses, which, when it happens, the world will deal with in what seems at the time to be the most cost-effective way of dealing with the problem, even if it's ugly (q.v. NAT)
>   
Why do you believe that the world chooses the most cost-effective
solution?    As far as I can tell the market mostly engages in
hill-climbing, which rarely produces an optimal result. 

Now if instead you had said people would do whatever seemed to be
easiest, without much regard to the long-term cost, I'd probably agree
with you.

Maybe I should buy stock in application hosting firms that "own"
substantial chunks of IPv4 space.

Keith

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:51:13 -0700

On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> sure what sense you mean there.

The only thing that's about to change is that the cost of v4  
addresses will go up
slightly.  The black market in addresses is now inevitable.  As  
demand climbs,
more people with assigned addresses will switch to NAT and put their  
prefixes
on the market, providing the 'supply' side of the equation.  This  
situation will
persist, with the 'demand' side slowly driving prices up.

Only when v6 becomes sufficiently attractive will it begin to be  
possible to
deploy v6 only sites and reduce demand.  So, until both content  
providers and
'eyeballs' see some obvious and compelling advantage to deploying v6,  
we have
a game of chicken, which no one will win.

Tony