Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion

[Doug Barton]

On 11/20/2011 20:54, Cutler James R wrote:
> 
> On Nov 20, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
>> There isn't going to be a "return to end-to-end." Users don't want
>> it, and it almost certainly is not a good idea even if they did.
> 
> I'd love to see the methodology and raw results for the poll of Users
> that gave the result you cite.

Oh please. This kind of appeal to authority is sometimes justified, or
even necessary. But it's all-too-often employed by people who can't
prove their point that way either.

> I also note the "Users" seem to thing "end-to-end" every time they
> send an email or instant message or use FaceTime or iMessage.

I'd love to see the methodology and raw results for the poll of Users
that gave the result you cite. See what I did there?

Meanwhile, since you offered anecdotal evidence to support your point,
I'll offer 2 to support mine. First, I think the overwhelming "zomg we
can't live without NAT!" chorus should be more than enough evidence to
prove my point. Meanwhile most P2P apps work just fine with single NAT,
thanks to mechanisms like UPNP and NAT-PMP. Although I admit I'm not
familiar with the 2 that you mentioned specifically.

For most people "end to end" means a return to the days of every
Internet host being reachable from every other. That hasn't been a valid
model for over a decade, with or without a NAT.

What IPv6 *may* still give us a chance to do is dodge the damage that's
going to be caused by CGN/LSN. But it doesn't require a return to the
end to end model to do it.


Doug

-- 

		"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
		"Too practical."

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/