[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2

Gert Doering wrote:

>>>Even with reclamation
>>>efforts, eventually we will reach the last /8,

Assuming your point above is on topic, I don't think so.

> There is no mandate to use NAT in the RIPE region (and I think that this
> is a good thing, as NAT might be useful, but overall it takes away freedom
> from the Internet users, and this shouldn't be forced on anybody).

OK.

I'll come back later after finishing a proposal of "end to end NAT",
which has end to end transparency to be able to support ftp port
command, SCTP, IPsec, DNS reverse look up, multicast, mobility and
so on.

> If the RIPE community wants to force NAT on people, well, they can of
> course change the policy.

As DRC wrote:

: It isn't about creating more addresses.  It is about using the  existing 
: addresses more efficiently.  Given the widespread  availability of NAT, 
: how many addresses does the average organization  actually need? Two 
: (one for their NAT gateway, one for their publicly  available 
: services)?  Particularly if they have a financial incentive  to
: use address space more efficiently? 

I think use of NAT in the future is inevitable and want fairness
between policies today and in the future.

							Masataka Ohta