Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>>> > > Keith> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >> If we can meet the needs of 80% of Internet users with some > >> form of shared access there will be more addresses left for the > >> 20% with greater needs. > >> > Keith> with 2**128 potential addresses, this is not only > Keith> unnecessary, it's harmful. there's far greater benefit to > Keith> be had by uniformity in address allocation, globally unique > Keith> addresses, and consistent use of addresses end-to-end. > > > I'll take ease in renumbering over application transparency for any > large network. Fair point. Though I actually think what we really need is a layer of indirection at the BGP level so that sites can have stable addresses without having to NAT.
I don't try to keep up with BGP but I thought at one time that I saw a proposal for an extension to BGP to do something very similar to this. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
