[186501] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Sun Dec 20 13:22:29 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <A8F8A1A3-DB06-4065-ACE4-9862F5DAF0D2@hammerfiber.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:22:20 -0800
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com> wrot=
e:
>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>
>> There is little that can be done about much of this now, but at least we=
can label some of these past decisions as ridiculous and hopefully a lesso=
n for next time.
>
> There isn=E2=80=99t going to be a next time.
*points and snickers quietly*
You're either an incredible optimist,
or you're angling to be the next oft-
misquoted "640KB should be enough
for anyone" voice.
We got a good quarter of a century
out of IPv4. I think we *might* hit
the century mark with IPv6...maybe.
But before we hit that, I suspect we'll
have found enough shortcomings
and gaps that we'll need to start
developing a new addressing format
to go with the newer networking
protocols we'll be designing to
fix those shortcomings.
Until the sun goes poof, there's *always*
going to be a next time. We're never going
to get it _completely_ right. You just have
to consider a longer time horizon than our
own careers.
Matt
