On Apr 5, 2012, at 7:33 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >> Unfortunately, it is not clear that the market cares enough >> about end-to-end transparency to fund the development of >> NPTv6 or IPv4 NAT-aware end-nodes, because while end-to-end >> transparency is something that we in the IETF hold dear, it >> does not have enough practical value for Internet-connected >> enterprises that they have been willing to incur any cost or >> inconvenience to maintain it. In fact, in many cases, they >> prefer _not_ to have it. > > Totally wrong. > > Many internet-connected enterprises have been willing to pay > extra money to have fixed IP addresses, and, worse, independent > global routing table entries for multihoming, to reliably > maintain the end to end transparency to reach their servers.
Earlier comments on this list indicated that there are ~40K enterprises that have chosen to incur these costs. How many enterprises have chosen to use IPv4 NAT instead? Margaret
