| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
At 08:32 p.m. 29/07/2007, David Conrad wrote:
Raul, On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.Historically, NAT use hasn't needed promotion.
This is a byzantine discussion and I guess that we agree regarding the use of NAT.
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is that probably the use of NAT will be increased in developing countries when regional pools become exhausted because most ISPs will not have the economic power for compiting for IPv4 addresses in a possible market while others ISPs continue accessing IPv4 addresses.Indeed, but it isn't clear to me how this proposal helps that situation. The ISPs with the most power are also the ones who probably already have offices/subsidiaries/partners/etc. in Latin America and Africa.
This is something that should be answered by the proposal's authors.
Unless AfriNIC and LACNIC become _extremely_ stringent on membership and invest heavily in verification mechanisms,
Why not ? good point. But not only that. Other measures will be necessaries in the future too for avoiding or limiting the RIR shopping. And this is something that should be done by all the RIRs due to the fact that nobody know which one will be the first in running out of IPv4 addresses (if one). And it not depends only in the distribution of the unallocated pool, but also on the regional policies for dealing with the last part of the regional stocks in each region.
The discussion should include, but not limited to, the ideas behind your proposal of "soft landing".
I don't see the larger ISPs even blinking at this sort of thing. Just the cost of doing business... Rgds, -drc P.S. It might also be argued that the paradox you note could be a blessing in disguise as it means those in developing countries will make the shift to IPv6 that much sooner.
This is something similar to say that developing countries will be the firts ones in shifting to ethanol based cars because they will not have oil. But so, we will have to produce our own cars, and it will be of course more expensive than buying the cars produced for the big mass. Shifting to IPv6 is an objective and of course, it is probably more important for developing countries since they have less margin for speculating, and of course we are working very mucha on that and spending large amount of resources as we have been doing for the last 4-5 years, but the main objective for all of us should be, IMHO, a non traumatic transition to IPv6 worldwide.
Raúl
