[138471] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address shortage? Really?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Mar 8 11:21:21 2011
To: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:43:53 EST."
<357BF221-A470-4E5F-83F1-546A956CD2AB@cs.columbia.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:21:09 -0500
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1299601269_4909P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:43:53 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
> It wouldn't -- couldn't -- work that way. Leaving out longer paths (for many,
> many reasons) and sticking to 64-bit addresses, every host would have a 64-bit
> address: a gateway and a local address. For multihoming, there might be two or
> more such pairs. (Note that this isn't true loc/id split, since the low-order
> 32 bits aren't unique.) There's no pathalias problem at all, since we don't
> try to have a unique turtlevax section.
Sticking to 64-bit won't work, because some organizations *will* try to
dig themselves out of an RFC1918 quagmire and get reachability to
"the other end of our private net" by applying this 4 or 5 times to get
through the 4 or 5 layers of NAT they currently have. And then some
other dim bulb will connect one of those 5 layers to the outside world...
--==_Exmh_1299601269_4909P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNdld1cC3lWbTT17ARAooYAKCUx5xqbbnr62vNben/p+frLsLJYwCgyWy3
W/GJ8IKp2dgPSIaREfwd5b0=
=H2Yi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1299601269_4909P--
