IPv4 address shortage? Really?

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Mar 7 22:09:39 CST 2011

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:15:20PM -0600, Jima 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

	well... not that it gained any traction atall, but given
	the actual size/complexity of the global interconnect mesh,
	we -could- ease the transition timing by many years with the
	following administrative change.  No tricks, no OS hacks,
	no changes to software anywhere..  just a bit of renumbering...


	the usable IPv4 ranges
	RFC 1918

	Step one:   Invert RFC 1918 to define the global Internets interconnection
	Step two:   make all other usable IPv4 space "private".

	Serves 2,000,000 million clients w/o changing to a new protocol family.



More information about the NANOG mailing list