Re: IPv4 address shortage? Really?

[Raymond Macharia <rmacharia () gmail com>]

"misguided idea of someone who's way too invested in IPv4 and hasn't made
any necessary plans or steps to implement IPv6"

 Lack of planning or good business?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12859585

Raymond Macharia


On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Jima <nanog () jima tk> wrote:

> On 3/7/2011 5:43 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am
> > on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old
> > IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be
> > easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
> >
> > > 2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION.  Yes, you hear
> > me right.
>
>  This seems like either truly bizarre trolling, or the misguided idea of
> someone who's way too invested in IPv4 and hasn't made any necessary plans
> or steps to implement IPv6.  To implement this -- which, to begin with,
> seems like a bad idea to me (and judging by Mr. Andrews' response, others)
> -- you'd have to overhaul software on many, many computers, routers, and
> other devices.  (Wait, why does this sound familiar?)  Of course, the
> groundwork would need to be laid out and discussed, which will probably cost
> us a few years...too bad we don't have a plan that could be put into action
> sooner, or maybe even was already deployed.
>
>  Anyway, the needless ROT13 text fairly well convinced me that our messages
> may be traveling over an ethernet bridge.
>
>     Jima

"