On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Charles Anthony <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Robert Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I think that having HTTP use DNS was the big one; it changed the role of >>> DNS from finding computers by name to the being the innocent victim of >> the >>> land rush of domain name marketing. >>> >>> Followed closely by NAT being used make vast portions of the internet >> dark. >>> >>> -- Charles >> >> What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn’t enough IPv4 address >> space to go around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry. >> > > What they did was 'NAT plus IPV6 will solve everything.' > > It seems like NAT gave them enough breathing room to fumble IPV6 through > feature creep and enabled slow uptake. > > The is no pressure to leave NAT; the vast majority of the NATed users have > bought into the client/server model of centrally managed services and are > happy surfing the web and putting their credit card numbers in the cloud; > the ISPs are raking in the money. NAT is great for that, but if you and I > want to do peer-to-peer, we are out of luck. > > I don't have a problem with NAT per se w.r.t. address exhaustion; I have a > problem with it apparently being deployed as a solution, and not as a > stop-gap. > > -- Charles All, Didn’t quite realize (maybe should have) the discussion I’d kick off. I was thinking “classic” in regard to my OS 10.4 machines which are well over a decade old. The discussion is fascinating, but ... Relabelled the thread “OT” because i think it’s maybe not germane to “classic” computing. Please reply to this title (or better, off-list) if you agree. - Mark 210-522-6025 office 210-379-4635 cell
