In his previous mail, Thomas Narten writes:
>
>
> Now, consider someone in the process of deploying massive numbers of
> devices (100's of millions) together with the infrastructure to
> support them (e.g., wireless). With IPv4, they face not only the
> necessity of using NAT to get to outside destinations, but also the
> use of NAT _internally_ because there isn't enough private address
> space to properly number the internal part of the infrastructure.
>
>
> I don't know about you, but it scares me to read the various forecasts
> about how wireless will transform the landscape over the next few
> years. E.g., more wireless phones with internet connectivity than
> PCs. The numbers are just staggering and the associated demand for
> addresses will be astonishing. We ain't seen nothing yet.
>
The basic assumptions in your answer are:
1) wireless devices will need an IP address.
2) Wireless devices will need to run TCP over IP for doing file transfer,
web browsing etc.
These are neither necessary, nor desirable solutions for wireless data
or voice devices providing data. Most end user don't care whether their
wireless email comes using an IP address or using a GSM ID or a Re-FLEX
capcode. Wireless standards folks, if they want, can continue to keep NAT
and IPv6 addresses away from end wireless devices.
Cheers,
--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.,
