OT: was: Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)

Tapley, Mark mtapley at swri.edu
Mon Mar 28 14:50:43 CDT 2016

On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Charles Anthony <charles.unix.pro at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Robert Johnson <aloha at blastpuppy.com>
> wrote:
>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony <charles.unix.pro at gmail.com>
>> 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
> stop-gap.
> -- Charles

	Didn’t quite realize (maybe should have) the discussion I’d kick off. I was thinking “classic” in regard to my OS 10.4 machines which are well over a decade old. The discussion is fascinating, but ...
	Relabelled the thread “OT” because i think it’s maybe not germane to “classic” computing.
	Please reply to this title (or better, off-list) if you agree.

					- Mark
					210-522-6025 office         210-379-4635    cell

More information about the cctalk mailing list