Keith, read my words, I choose them more carefully than you imagine. solves their problems at negligible cost TO THEM
What part of that do you disagree with? I don't dispute the fact that NAT is a suboptimal solution if we look at the system as a whole. But the reason I deployed NAT in my house was that Roadrunner wanted $10 extra per month for every device I connected to a maximum of 4. I have over 200 IP enabled devices in my house. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com>wrote: > On 07/12/2013 09:28 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore > <mo...@network-heretics.com>wrote: > >> On 07/12/2013 08:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >>> >>> And before people start bringing up all the reasons I am wrong here, >>> first consider the fact that for many years it was IETF ideology that NATs >>> were a terrible thing that had to be killed. A position I suspect was >>> largely driven by some aggressive lobbying by rent-seeking ISPs looking to >>> collect fees on a per device basis rather than per connection. >>> >> >> You are weakening your argument. NATs still are a terrible thing that >> need to be killed. They break applications and prevent many useful >> applications from being used on the Internet. That much is more widely >> understood now than it was 10-15 years ago. > > > The Internet has less than 4 billion addresses for well over six billion > devices. > > > No, the Internet has approximately 2**128 addresses. NATs are a large > part of the reason that IPv6 adoption has been delayed. > > > I think that at this point you are the only person still making the > argument that the world should reject the easy fix for IPv4 address > exhaustion that solves their problems at negligible cost to them for the > sake of forcing them to make a transition that would be very difficult, > expensive and impact every part of the infrastructure. > > > You are wrong both about solving the problems and negligible cost. (And > the real issue isn't so much the cost, but who pays.) > > > But it would be nice if at least one of those people who argued against > me when I was making the case for NAT that has now become the accepted > approach would say 'hey Phill you were right there, I am sorry for implying > that you were an evil heretical loon for suggesting it'. Not that I am > holding my breath waiting. > > > If you were right, someone might say that. > > > Most folk here value consensus. I do not value consensus when it is > wrong. > > > Nor do I. > > Keith > > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
