On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei > <jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its >> limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which >> means the next "must have" viral applications will require IPv6 and this >> may spur the move away from an IPv4 that has been crippled by NAT >> everywhere. > > It won't happen and I'll tell you why not. > > Client to client communication block diagrams: > > Without NAT: > Client->Router->Router->Router->Router->Router->Client > > With NAT: > Client->Router->Router->Relay->Router->Router->Client > > At a high level, the two communication diagrams are virtually identical. > > Add killer app. By it's nature, a killer app is something folks will > pay good money for. This means that 100% of killer apps have > sufficient funding to install those specialty relays. > > Odds of a killer app where one router can't be replaced with a > specialty relay while maintaining the intended function: not bloody > likely. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin
The killer app of the internet is called p2p. Don't we already have a shortage of IPv4 addresses to start abandoning p2p, and requiring every service to be server-based, wasting extra precious IPv4 addresses? Where's the logic behind this: make it impossible for two computers to community directly because we have a shortage of addresses, yet introduce a third machine with, again, rather limited resources, to waste another IPv4 address? Wasting all kinds of extra resources and adding extra latency? That's not a killer app, that's the inefficiency of capitalism. C.
