IPv4 address shortage? Really?

Vadim Antonov avg at kotovnik.com
Mon Mar 7 05:43:20 CST 2011

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.

And, no, it does not require any changes any in the global routing
infrastructure - as implemented now, and most OS kernels (those which
aren't broken-as-designed, grin) would do the trick just fine.  None of
that dual-stack stupidity, and, of course, no chicken-and-egg problem if
the servers and gateways can be made to respect really old and
well-established standards.

DNS and most applications would need some (fairly trivial) updating,
though, to work properly with the extended addressing; and sysadmins
would need to do tweaks in their configs since some mythology-driven
"security" can get in the way.  But they don't have to do that en mass
and all at once.

The most obvious solution to the non-problem of address space shortage
is the hardest to notice, ain't it?


P.S. Hfr YFEE gb ebhgr orgjrra cevingr nqqerff fcnprf bire choyvpnyyl
ebhgrq fcnpr, Yhxr. Guvax bs cevingr nqqerff ovgf nf n evtug-fvqr
rkgrafvba gb gur sbhe-bpgrg choyvp nqqerff.

P.P.S. Gb rkgraq shegure, nygreangr gjb qvfgvapg cevingr nqqerff fcnprf,
nf znal gvzrf nf lbh pna svg vagb gur urnqre.

More information about the NANOG mailing list