[186415] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Wed Dec 16 19:57:51 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <798937A2-415F-4316-BC48-D8C07769CB64@beckman.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:57:29 +1100
To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
While we will get us there eventually it will be at the considerably =
more expensive
for everyone involved. There is also a distinct lack of a working free =
market in most
of the world. There isn't one in Australia. =46rom what I read there =
isn't one in most
of the developed nations in the world including the US.
Mark
On 17/12/2015, at 11:14 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
> Mark,
>=20
> Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market =
will get us all there eventually.=20
>=20
> I don't like what you eat. Lets put a surcharge on it to make you feel =
pain and do what I want. :)
>=20
> -mel beckman
>=20
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> This doesn't put pain on those that have enough addresses that they =
don't need
>> to NAT yet. We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 =
only.
>>=20
>> Mark
>>=20
>>> On 17/12/2015, at 10:39 AM, Charles Monson =
<charles.lists@camonson.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> We need to make IPv4 painful to use. Adding delay between SYN and =
SYN/ACK would
>>> be one way to achieve this. Start at 100ms..200ms and increase it =
by 100ms each year.
>>>=20
>>> It seems like NAT would be another way to make IPv4 more painful to =
use.
>>=20
