[At-Large] They're out of IPv4 Addresses!

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Sep 17 21:31:52 UTC 2012

On 18/09/2012, at 4:55 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

> 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?
This is the issue I was addressing
>   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?]
I think it's pretty clear that. The point Geoff makes (particularly in the APrIGF session) is that it is the content providers making money
>   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/
Carriers know EXACTLY what they are doing
>   4.  Are Network Operators and Content Providers fearful of the WCIT
>   because they could potentially lose traditional revenues?
The danger of WCIT is more about moving from a multi stakeholder, open set of processes to the ITU-T, and from a definition of telecommunications that is greatly expanded.  But all of that is on the various posts, including our own site with all relevant documents

> *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
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list