Posted by: Europa Dream
on January 28, 2004 01:05 AM
"If the Internet architecture provided i) plenty of addresses, ii) locally allocatable addresses, and iii) the ability change providers easily, there would be *no* NAT boxes," Chiappa wrote.
Sounds to me like the solution is to use the same tactics as were used to convince people to start homesteads in areas without the full infrastructure they were used to. For IPv6, why not allocate a static block of 256 addresses, a top level domain name (and the ability to add sub-names for those 256 addresses freely and easily), and control over who hosts the DNS and Routing entries for that block of addresses (yes, I know there are security issues...) for every man, woman, and child on Earth. That'd take about 2 trillion addresses and could, perhaps, be administered through UNESCO as a birthright for every person. When a person got a device with a programmable address, they could assign one of their personal IP addresses to it and release the manufacturer's IP that it came with back into that manufacturer's address pool (for a credit of some sort). If they ended up with more than 256 addresses needed, they could purchase more for a nominal fee (presumably with the "credit" they had accumulated from returning some of the manufacturers' IP addresses by using their own). Yes, massive wastage, but it would give IPv6 an "in" (especially in the developing world) that would provide it the traction it would need to make it into the real world. Time would take care of the rest.
P.S. I agree with both the "fundamentalist" view and the "pragmatist" view regarding NAT. I believe that both views are correct, and that the result of this debate will be decided "democratically" by people "voting" with their network implementations. At the end of the day, both sides will probably have to compromize somewhat to arrive at a solution that works for everyone.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
IPv6 Frontier Pioneering...
Posted by: Europa Dream on January 28, 2004 01:05 AMSounds to me like the solution is to use the same tactics as were used to convince people to start homesteads in areas without the full infrastructure they were used to. For IPv6, why not allocate a static block of 256 addresses, a top level domain name (and the ability to add sub-names for those 256 addresses freely and easily), and control over who hosts the DNS and Routing entries for that block of addresses (yes, I know there are security issues...) for every man, woman, and child on Earth. That'd take about 2 trillion addresses and could, perhaps, be administered through UNESCO as a birthright for every person. When a person got a device with a programmable address, they could assign one of their personal IP addresses to it and release the manufacturer's IP that it came with back into that manufacturer's address pool (for a credit of some sort). If they ended up with more than 256 addresses needed, they could purchase more for a nominal fee (presumably with the "credit" they had accumulated from returning some of the manufacturers' IP addresses by using their own). Yes, massive wastage, but it would give IPv6 an "in" (especially in the developing world) that would provide it the traction it would need to make it into the real world. Time would take care of the rest.
P.S. I agree with both the "fundamentalist" view and the "pragmatist" view regarding NAT. I believe that both views are correct, and that the result of this debate will be decided "democratically" by people "voting" with their network implementations. At the end of the day, both sides will probably have to compromize somewhat to arrive at a solution that works for everyone.
#