Steven Bellovin wrote:
> I do not agree. I remember discussing the concept with folks, a couple
> of years before that; we agreed that NATs would be very challenging
> because of the need for protocol-dependent packet inspection and
> modification. Add to that an underestimate of how long it would take
> before v6 was adopted, and a gross underestimate of how large the
> Internet would be -- remember, IPng happened before the Web explosion --
> and it was very easy to ignore the possibility of NAT, let alone the
> renumbering and (questionable) firewall benefits of it. In retrospect,
> sure, but in 1993-1994? It was not at all obvious.
Underestimate?
One of a fatal problem of IPv6 that IPv6 address is 16B long
while 8B is a lot more than enough is a result of gross
overestimate of how large the Internet would be.
RFC1715 killed IPv6.
Masataka Ohta
