[127295] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Kill Switch.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Jun 19 23:29:44 2010
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:59:11 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: "Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb@byrneit.net>
In-Reply-To: <72F9A69DCF990443B2CEC064E605CE0608577F@Pascal.zaphodb.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:46:37 -0700
"Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb@byrneit.net> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roland Perry [mailto:lists@internetpolicyagency.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:11 PM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Internet Kill Switch.
> >
> > In article
> > <AANLkTimTdz5UO8v8ObC7CXgmNODAHqzjaHQbEtMuwuny@mail.gmail.com>,
> Matthew
> > Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> writes
> > >After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't
> > >have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses,
> > >unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
> >
> > What's the average household size, especially in developing countries.
> > And does "everyone" have access, if their home does?
> > --
> > Roland Perry
>
> [Tomas L. Byrnes] The issue is more that everyone who DOES have access
> has more than one device, and that many of those devices move around. I
> won't get into the "NAT breaks the Internet" war, but it certainly does
> limit the type of applications you can run, or at the very least makes
> network provisioning, operations and maintenance much more complex than
> a non-natted network.
>
>
>
Yeah, it's scary.
"Issues with IP Address Sharing"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02
