IPv4 address shortage? Really?

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Tue Mar 8 10:21:09 CST 2011


On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:43:53 EST, Steven Bellovin said:

> It wouldn't -- couldn't -- work that way.  Leaving out longer paths (for many,
> many reasons) and sticking to 64-bit addresses, every host would have a 64-bit
> address: a gateway and a local address.  For multihoming, there might be two or
> more such pairs.  (Note that this isn't true loc/id split, since the low-order
> 32 bits aren't unique.)  There's no pathalias problem at all, since we don't
> try to have a unique turtlevax section.

Sticking to 64-bit won't work, because some organizations *will* try to
dig themselves out of an RFC1918 quagmire and get reachability to
"the other end of our private net" by applying this 4 or 5 times to get
through the 4 or 5 layers of NAT they currently have.  And then some
other dim bulb will connect one of those 5 layers to the outside world...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110308/003099b2/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list