Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050313135924.042aa1d0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:22:10 +0100
To: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa), ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050313120913.E4FFC86AED@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20050313120913.E4FFC86AED@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Why?
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 13:09 13/03/2005, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>So, yeah, it *is* easier to deploy first and then later make incremental
>modifications for scalability - if you like NAT.

May I venture a silly question? What is a NAT today?

I prefer speaking of coreboxes with (among others) a NAT service (*) (as 
edge smart boxes opposed to middleboxes) and of telemates or endboxes for a 
non host boxes (sensors, actuators, appliances, etc.).

There are 3 billions telephones,1.3 billions mobiles, 3 billions of TV, 4 
billions of radio listeners. Each of them needs an IPv6 address today with 
10 to 1000 extensions to support their SNHN (small network/home network) 
and their "endboxes". Only IPv6, as an IPv4 with longer address" can 
support them. In that sense I understand IPv6 as the scalability of the 
initial IPv4 deployment (this has actually nothing todo with IPv6, just 
with the availability of the numbers for the necessary scaling and 
directory/routing organization).

Obviously a "user" point of view. Where am I wrong?
jfc

PS (*) as many other services like firewall, application protection, email 
servers, local NIC and nameservers, OPES, webserver, backup manager, CVS, 
creditcard transaction, encryption, etc.  


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf