21–30 of 69 posts
There are a lot of addresses that should be 'reclaimed' . These days, most enterprises really only need a few public addresses, and many of them are 'sitting on' large chunks of addresses they acquired in the 90s.
There are a lot of addresses that should be 'reclaimed' . These days, most enterprises really only need a few public addresses, and many of them are 'sitting on' large chunks of addresses they acquired in the 90s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is misleading: computers (and especially printers) attached to a local network do not deplete public IP addresses A device connected to a LAN in someone's house will often just have a private IP and go through a NAT for its internet access. However many big organisations will have been allocated a large address space at some point, often the size of a Class B. Their machines internally will often use a global…
Good point. I thought that there is not much use for a public IP for a printer, but I did not think about big address allocations. But is there any convenience in this? Can't they just switch a private LAN infrastructure connected through NAT?
They could and given that in most organisations devices are already generally subject to restrictive firewall rules it shouldn't impact them all that much.
I think it would be better to focus efforts on making these organisations move to IPv6. This could possibly be achieved by ordering them to give back most of their IPv4 addresses. Since they will then be forced to reorganise their infrastructure anyway they could use this opportunity to switch on IPv6 across their organisation at the same time, if they haven't already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. I thought that there is not much use for a public IP for a printer, but I did not think about big address allocations. But is there any convenience in this? Can't they just switch a private LAN infrastructure connected through NAT?
Printing from off-site is easier with a public IP, I don't know how often that is necessary.
There are a lot of addresses that should be 'reclaimed' . These days, most enterprises really only need a few public addresses, and many of them are 'sitting on' large chunks of addresses they acquired in the 90s.
I wonder if it wouldn't just be cheaper to design NAT-friendly apps. By the looks of it, the transition would last a decade and there would still be large legacy infrastructure in place after that. So why not learn to love NAT and ipv4?
I don't think my router even supports IPv6. This is going to be -such- a fun transition. I really thought people would get serious about it 2 years ago.
Consider a pair of random IPs in standard written form:
v4: 209.85.225.147
v6: 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e8
I don't think my router even supports IPv6. This is going to be -such- a fun transition. I really thought people would get serious about it 2 years ago.
There are a lot of addresses that should be 'reclaimed' . These days, most enterprises really only need a few public addresses, and many of them are 'sitting on' large chunks of addresses they acquired in the 90s.
It would be a better use of everybody's energy to actually get to work on the IPv6 transition, rather than trying to squeeze another couple of years out of IPv4. I think it should be pretty much obvious to everyone by now that until we actually hit the wall of IPv4, no one is going to get serious about the transition. NAT is not a great solution - it's a hack, and as anybody that has had to set up a server behind a N…