I have been reading these many excellent points for eleven days now. However, I note
that similar discussions occur after most IETFs. My own preference is that these
conversations not occur, since their (almost predictable) recurrence suggests that
this is more "venting" than "problem solving",
Taking your valuable points a bit further, NAT avoidance arguments aren't likely to
sell IPv6 to us large end users, because this is a problem for which it is difficult
to construct a business case that will excite the non-technical managers who are in
charge of blessing large capital expenses.
Would such a rendezvous service work if their were NATs between each of the
participants and the service itself (regardless of whether it is hosted on a NAT or
not)? If so, wouldn't such a solution alter peer-to-peer to become a hub-and-spoke
service requiring ISP mediation in the Internet case
A few questions for the list:
1) If we effectively ran out of addresses when RFC 1597 was published, has running out
of addresses hurt us in any way?
2) Originally we had anticipated using IPv6 to save us from IPv4 address depletion.
What's the status of IPv6? How does IPv6 traffic compare in v
Why not ask the "Inventor of the Internet" (Al Gore) to sponsor an Internet Day bill
in the senate? If it catches on here, perhaps other countries would also follow
suit... Or perhaps Finland or Sweden should lead the way since they are debatably the
"most connected" countries on earth?
>
