Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Sean Doran]

John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

| To do nothing can be far more dangerous (as proven by the disdain for NAT).  

The disdain for NAT is non-uniform.  Personally, I rather like NAT.

| Can IPv6 be worse for the net than NAT?

IPv6 and IPv4 will coexist for a time; the topology of the (large)
IPv4 Internet and the (tiny) IPv6 Internet are discontiguous, and
is unlikely to cease being so before IPv6 curls up and dies.

There are real operational costs to maintaining ships-in-the-night
multiprotocol networks; the maintenance cost of such networks is one
factor in why we don't see DECNET Phase IV, IPX or CLNS being forwarded
by equipment in the core of the IPv4 Internet.

NAT and inter-protocol header translators (e.g. FAITH or 6to4, 
ironically written by Carpenter and Moore, who both really hate NAT) 
totally eliminate the near-term need to even consider ships-in-the-night 
in the core.  They also can reduce the weak pressure on the IPv4
address space by aggregating multiple hosts behind a single (IPv4) address.

        Sean.