Perry,
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, let's not focus on Bill's data. Frankly, I haven't seen any data
> > on this topic from any source that really convinces me that it
> > means much. All I know is that we have thousands of sites using
> > private address space, which completely falsifies any real data and
> > makes it impossible to attach any real meaning to concepts such as
> > "running out of addresses". My personal opinion is that we ran out
> > of addresses in practical terms around about when RFC 1597 was published.
>
> I hate to start a flame war, but Brian is absolutely right. I have
> clients spending gargantuan amounts of money dealing with layer upon
> layer of NATs because of this. Some people believe that "we aren't
> running out of address space" but the fact is that we've already run
> out. It just isn't available for many essential purposes.
Consider an alternative where the client decides to use IPv6. Granted,
the client could get enough IPv6 addresses for all purposes, regardless of
whether these purposes essential or not. But then in order for that
client to communicate with the rest of the folks, the client would
likely to use NAT (as the rest of the folks would still use IPv4). So,
the cost of using NAT wouldn't go away. But in addition, this alternative
would cause the client to swallow the cost of transition from IPv4 to IPv6
in its infrastructure.
Yakov.
