[At-Large] They're out of IPv4 Addresses!
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 18:55:30 UTC 2012
Thanks Holly, I thought I should share this for general discussion stemming
from what you had raised earlier as I have formulated a few questions to
enable us to critically think about some of the things and generate
discussion. I will listen to the two sided economy,
[If the estimation that there will be somewhere around 3 billion users by
2016 and that judging from current internet traffic, volume will continue
to increase in days to come, we wonder why the transitioning phase across
the world is still slow.]
I have a few questions for discussion
*NATs*
Network Address Translators (NATs) were meant to be short term "temporary
solutions" whilst working out "complex far reaching solutions" [see: Egevang,
K., and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)," RFC
1631<ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1631.txt>,
May 1994. and Huston, G, "Anatomy: A Look Inside Network Address
Translators". Huston talks about the advantages and disadvantages of NATs
as he discusses its anatomy at length.
*Questions*
1. Why are carriers generally resistant to transitioning to IPv6 and
prefer to deal with address shortages through NATs?
2. Is there a possibility that Carriers who in the advent of the
Internet have been losing revenue (preference for VOIP over traditional
telephony, mobile substitution etc) and have found that a growing revenue
pool in content? [What are the possible drivers behind the ETNO Proposal?]
3. Is there are possibility that with IPv4 addresses, carriers know
exactly what IPv4 addresses are doing, behaving and can "sell" (without our
express permission) this information to Advertisers? [Imagine the Privacy
issues - Australia, UK and France have called on Google to completely
destroy their data or investigate its contents, see:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/311216,privacy-commissioner-orders-google-to-destroy-data.aspx];
In the US, Google was recently fined US $22.5million for Apple Safari
Tracking, this was a Privacy Settlement and the largest US FTC Penalty ever
for violation of a Commission Order, see:
http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/09/google-ftc-safari-tracking-22-5-million-fine/
4. Are Network Operators and Content Providers fearful of the WCIT
because they could potentially lose traditional revenues?
*Some Interesting Readings [shared earlier but consolidated for ease of
reference]*
- Network Service Models and the Internet, his views published on his
website this month, see:
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-09/telecommsandip.html
- On the Content economy, his views published on his website in 2001,
see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2001-06/2001-06-content.html
- On Carriage v Content, his views published on his website in July,
2012, see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-07/carriagevcontent.html.
He talks briefly about ITRs and ETNO proposal in relation to the ITRs
- Anatomy: A Look Inside Network Address Translators, see:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_7-3/anatomy.html
More information about the At-Large
mailing list