> From: Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
> HUGE market, it is indeed cheap and easy to use. ... NAT can be used
> for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's a good hammer
> when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what to do about
> the large corporation issue.
This relates to a thought I've been having over the last couple of days,
which is that I recently read that the Internet usage numbers in many large
cities in the US (sorry, no idea about the rest of the world, and in any case
this point relates to ARIN only) is now at or over 50% of citizens - i.e. in
the US, the logistic growth curve for that group (which ought to be the
largest possible market segment) has started to tip over.
So my question is: I've been hearing that ARIN is the stingiest of the
registries when it comes to handing out IPv4 addresses - is there any valid
reason for this extreme parsimoniousness (particularly when the plan is to
move over to IPv6, so there ought to be no reason for extreme hoarding of
IPv4 addresses)?
Perhaps a little loosening of the address allocation tap at ARIN, when it
comes to allocating addresses for non-home use, could make life substantially
easier for the segment where some people are finding NAT making their life
difficult?
Noel
