[LINK] www.ipv6.org.au/summit

[Danny Yee]

> There is a long history of treating port numbers as part of the network
> address. It was considered as part of the design of TCP/IP. 

But it's not part of the spec, nor is it in any major implementation
that I know of.  So in order for this to be implemented, every router,
every ADSL modem, every personal computer, etc. is still going to
have to be upgraded, or some fancy tunnelling put in place.  I just
don't see that that is any easier than deploying IPv6, and you get
a darn sight less from it.

The reason NAT has been and will continue to be the main solution
is that it can be deployed locally without global change or complex
transition requirements.  I dislike NAT because it risks turning an
open Internet into a collection of telco/ISP fiefdoms, but it's not
going away.

If IPv4 address blocks become tradeable, will Ford be able to fund
their pensions out of their /8?

Danny.
  ----------------------------------------------------
  http://dannyreviews.com/ - one thousand book reviews
  http://wanderingdanny.com/ - travelogues + photos
  http://danny.oz.au/ - information activism, blog
  ----------------------------------------------------