[arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)

Mon Oct 27 21:53:39 UTC 2003

Andy Dills wrote:

>Technologies like NAT and efforts to reclaim poorly assigned address space
>have a large negative pressure on the increase of IP utilization. As more
>and more "appliances" need IP addresses, people will realize more and more
>that the last thing they want is those "applicances" on public IP space.
>
>  
>
It seems that the Internet will take the "switchboard lady" detour due 
to misguided
thinking like the one above, mostly due to the fact that a major OS 
explodes
when it touches the Internet. Fortunately hardly any of these 
"applicances" have
this OS.

>How about a protocol that eliminated the need for BGP, while
>simultaneously making every address portable? That, to me, would be The
>Answer. Not that it seems possible given what we currently know, but 20
>
>  
>
This protocol is called HIP, right? (Host Identity Payload)

>Does anybody honestly think companies will commit the capex needed to
>implement IPv6?
>
>  
>
Yes. Investment in information technology hardly ever makes sense. If it 
would,
market share numbers of various ICT products would look wildly different.

>I know this thread keeps on coming up...but I don't see any positive
>momentum for IPv6, and if the people of this Esteemed Forum can't agree
>that IPv6 is something that must happen ASAP, how will the PHBs (those who
>control the money) and the customers (those who control demand) ever be
>convinced?
>
>  
>
Because they heard somebody from Gartner, IDC, etc. so say so.

>Hell, I can't even convince myself that IPv6 is neccessary. Is anybody out
>there totally sold on IPv6, enough to evangelize it to anybody willing to
>listen? I mean, IPv6 is no CIDR...
>
>  
>
You are smarter than many of them. Like most of the readers here.

Pete