[138475] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address shortage? Really?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Tue Mar 8 12:38:14 2011
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9616.1299601269@localhost>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:37:10 -0500
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:21 09AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:43:53 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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...
>=20
Those are just a few of the "many, many reasons" I alluded to... The =
"right"
fix there is to define AA records that only have pairs of addresses.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
