o'dell's GSE draft addressed renumbering perfectly.
In message <5.0.2.1.2.20010123015631.02bbba30@localhost>, "David R. Conrad" typ
ed:
>>Kyle,
>>
>>At 03:53 AM 1/23/2001 -0500, Kyle Lussier wrote:
>>>It is a horried idea to start setting up NATs on cell phones,
>>
>>Hmm. We should probably tell that to the existing 17+ million users of
>>i-Mode in Japan. Better hurry as i-Mode is moving into Europe.
>>
>>>(I liked the ip addressible coffee machine I saw that you could
>>>telnet into). Do you really want to put and configure a NAT in
>>>your coffee maker?
>>
>>I would imagine that you'd have a household gateway/NAT, not a NAT on every
>>device in your household (and I'd argue if you have to configure anything
>>network related on your coffee maker other than perhaps its name, something
>>is seriously wrong).
>>
>>>As the pain of limited IP address space tightens we'll move more
>>>and more to IPv6 and it'll level itself out.
>>
>>IPv6 is not a magic wand. Because v6 uses provider based addressing,
>>non-transit providers will still need to renumber in v6 as they do in
>>v4. Renumbering can be expensive. NATs are seen by many enterprises as a
>>way of removing the need to renumber should they change providers. Until
>>the issue of renumbering is addressed, NATs will not go away.
>>
>>Rgds,
>>-drc
>>
cheers
jon
