Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 05:02:58PM +0100, Valentin Hilbig wrote:
> Those type of access noted in the slides should be (from the implementations
> point of view) possible with private/NAT IP space, too.  Thus you cannot
> justify a possible future IP demand with a false implementation of services.

Just to make sure this is clear: current policy does NOT force NAT and
private space on anyone.  It is made sure that requestors have thought
about private address space and then decided to apply for public IP 
space, but no pressure is applied(!).

There are lots of applications that do not work properly with NAT (most
kind of "incoming multimedia apps", like CuSeeMee, Netmeeting, etc.)
and those will gain in popularity in the years to come.  So while NAT
will work for some, it is not a solution for everybody.

> There might be other justifications, but widely deployed Internet TV and
> VoIP which is designed to need non-private IP space at the customers side is
> the proof for that something is wrong with the implementation of Internet TV
> and VoIP.  

No - it just shows that the IETF is right with their belief that "NAT is
evil" (not all IETF activists, but many).

> This is simply a mathematical fact as there are less IPs (4
> Billion) than possible customers (5 Billion, and for VoIP plus Internet-TV
> you then need 10 Billion IPs).

Yes.  This is why we should go to IPv6 as quickly as possible.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299