[clug] IPv6 Australia?

[Sam Couter]

Robert Edwards <bob at cs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> When the IPv4 address crunch comes, all that will happen is that a
> market will open up for IPv4 address space. Those large corporations
> etc. sitting on several class A's will make some money breaking them
> up and flogging off the unused addresses as class C's.

Excellent. Yet more money to be made by rich people by selling an
artificially scarce resource.

> Unlike Sam (and many others), I think that NAT is cool and don't hate
> it at all. All properly designed protocols work fine with NAT, so why
> not?

NAT relegates IP devices to the role of client only. They cannot act as
a server. IP is supposed to be peer based. NAT breaks that.

The biggest downside of the peer relationship being widely broken is
that it becomes difficult to publish a service that a big player isn't
willing to host. Imagine how far everyone's favourite and most abused
protocol, HTTP, would have got if the big players at the time like AOL
were in control and weren't interested in supporting a competitor to
their already established distribution networks.

> So no compelling advantage for IPv6 other than more address space (to
> defend against in your firewall scripts/blacklists etc.) and bigger
> addresses (takes more CPU to hash when connection tracking and more
> memory to store etc.). DNS for IPv6 is a real doozy (esp. reverse DNS!).

On the other hand, the strict hierarchical routing scheme means routers
don't need to store such massive routing tables.
-- 
Sam Couter         |  mailto:sam at couter.id.au
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20080724/7f4c6839/attachment.bin