On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which means the next "must have" viral applications will require IPv6 and this may spur the move away from an IPv4 that has been crippled by NAT everywhere.
It won't happen and I'll tell you why not.
Client to client communication block diagrams:
Without NAT: Client->Router->Router->Router->Router->Router->Client
With NAT: Client->Router->Router->Relay->Router->Router->Client
At a high level, the two communication diagrams are virtually identical.
Add killer app. By it's nature, a killer app is something folks will pay good money for. This means that 100% of killer apps have sufficient funding to install those specialty relays.
Odds of a killer app where one router can't be replaced with a specialty relay while maintaining the intended function: not bloody likely.
Regards, Bill Herrin
The killer app of the internet is called p2p. Don't we already have a shortage of IPv4 addresses to start abandoning p2p, and requiring every service to be server-based, wasting extra precious IPv4 addresses? Where's the logic behind this: make it impossible for two computers to community directly because we have a shortage of addresses, yet introduce a third machine with, again, rather limited resources, to waste another IPv4 address? Wasting all kinds of extra resources and adding extra latency? That's not a killer app, that's the inefficiency of capitalism. C.