Hello Simon,   
      
   On Sunday November 07 2010 13:21, you wrote to me:   
      
    SP> I think the main problem with these pro-IPv6 arguments is   
      
   I think one of the problems with the slow introduction of IPv6 is that so many   
   people seem to think it is an option. But it is not a matter of weighing the   
   pros and cons and then decide to go along or not.   
      
   IPv6 is not an option. It is coming, like it or not.   
      
   http://tinyurl.com/2v4wpob   
      
    SP> that a lot of them assume that every system should have a globally   
    SP> addressable IP address.  This is not the case.   
      
   Yes and no. To access the internet, a system must have a globally adressable   
   IP address. But.. it need not have a unique address, the address can be shared   
   with other systems.   
      
    SP> Most Internet users only use a restricted set of apps anyway, like   
    SP> their Facebook, Twitter, and a few other websites, and maybe a Torrent   
    SP> or a VPN client, which can run from inside a NAT firewall.   
      
   Some application run fine from within a NAT. Others doe not run so fine, and   
   some will only run from within a NAT with great effort.   
      
   Many applications will not run at all from a NAT behind NAT.   
      
    SP> Check out:   
      
    SP> http://www.grc.com/nat/nat.htm   
      
   I am aware of the concept. My IPV4 LAN is connected to the outside world via a   
   NAT. Actually I have more than one subnet behind NAT.   
      
   Does not alter the fact that NAT is a kludge. It has given us another twenty   
   years, but now that well has run dry too.   
      
   NAT os a kludge. Most applications wil run better if we return to the original   
   idea of full end to end connectivity. IPv6 makes that possible.   
      
   In my previous message I already gave you the link to en article explaining   
   why NAT will not save us from the need to switch to IPv6:   
      
   http://tinyurl.com/26klu33   
      
    MVDV>> Reclaiming unused addresses will be a time consuming process   
    MVDV>> with lots of legal proceduers giving us only a few month extra:   
      
    SP> It's given Bigpond a lot longer than that.  They've been using   
    SP> reclaimed addresses since about a decade ago now :)   
      
   ISP can not reclaim unused address blocks other than those that were issued to   
   themselves and not used by themselves. Maybe Bigpond had some some blocks thet   
   they never used and are "reclaiming them now".  That procedure will not work   
   for most legacy blocks.   
      
   The reality is that IANA pool will run dry in the second quarter og next year.   
   Nothing wil stop that.   
      
    MVDV>> To run an OPv4 only server, you will need a public IPv4   
    MVDV>> address, An RFC1918 address won't do as that is not globally   
    MVDV>> routable.   
      
    SP> Actually you don't.  You just encapsulate the IPv4 traffic inside an   
    SP> IPv6 based tunnel, which uses the IPv6 internet address to transfer   
    SP> the IPv4 traffic.  IPv6 specifically provides for this type of   
    SP> technology, but you could always use IPSEC tunnels too, like modern   
    SP> VPN clients use....   
      
   It will not work without at least the tunnel entrance point having a public   
   IPv4 address. How else is the rest of the IPv4 internet going to find the   
   tunnel entrance?   
      
   Tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 is useful for those who's provider only offers native   
   IPv6, but it does NOT do away with the need for IPv4 adresses. So in regard to   
   IPv4 depletion, that too is dead end.   
      
      
   Cheers, Michiel   
      
   --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503   
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)