Re: Internet Kill Switch.

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:46:37 -0700
"Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roland Perry [mailto:lists () internetpolicyagency com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:11 PM
> > To: nanog () nanog org
> > Subject: Re: Internet Kill Switch.
> >
> > In article
> > <AANLkTimTdz5UO8v8ObC7CXgmNODAHqzjaHQbEtMuwuny () mail gmail com>,
> Matthew
> > Petach <mpetach () netflight com> writes
> > > After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't
> > > have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses,
> > > unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
> >
> > What's the average household size, especially in developing countries.
> > And does "everyone" have access, if their home does?
> > --
> > Roland Perry
>
> [Tomas L. Byrnes] The issue is more that everyone who DOES have access
> has more than one device, and that many of those devices move around. I
> won't get into the "NAT breaks the Internet" war, but it certainly does
> limit the type of applications you can run, or at the very least makes
> network provisioning, operations and maintenance much more complex than
> a non-natted network.

Yeah, it's scary. 

"Issues with IP Address Sharing"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02