AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)

Charles Anthony at
Mon Mar 28 14:08:29 CDT 2016

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Robert Johnson <aloha at>

> >
> > On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony < at>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think that having HTTP use DNS was the big one; it changed the role of
> > DNS from finding computers by name to the being the innocent victim of
> the
> > land rush of domain name marketing.
> >
> > Followed closely by NAT being used make vast portions of the internet
> dark.
> >
> > -- Charles
> What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn’t enough IPv4 address
> space to go around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry.

What they did was 'NAT plus IPV6 will solve everything.'

It seems like  NAT gave them enough breathing room to fumble IPV6 through
feature creep and enabled slow uptake.

The is no pressure to leave NAT; the vast majority of the NATed users have
bought into the client/server model of centrally managed services and are
happy surfing the web and putting their credit card numbers in the cloud;
the ISPs are raking in the money. NAT is great for that, but if you and I
want to do peer-to-peer, we are out of luck.

I don't have a problem with NAT per se w.r.t. address exhaustion; I have a
problem with it apparently being deployed as a solution, and not as a

-- Charles

More information about the cctalk mailing list