[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

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
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.


   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:
   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:
   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

   -  Network Service Models and the Internet, his views published on his
   website this month, see:
   - 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:

More information about the At-Large mailing list