[TriLUG] Adding to the list of topics: IPv6

[Magnus Hedemark]

On 22 Jan 2004, Jon Carnes wrote:

> The Bluetooth argument is fine, except that it requires another device
> for Bluetooth to hook up to.  The communications of the appliance are
> now dependent on a secondary computing device being in the house and
> setup properly to allow it to work. This isn't as limiting as NAT, but
> it adds complexity.

Sure, but it could be argued that anyone who is even interested 
in owning digital cameras in the first place is already going to have a 
computer.

> If we need to move to IPv6 anyway because we are running out of
> available IP addresses, then why *not* simply put an ethernet interface
> on the appliance (which is much cheaper than a Bluetooth interface) and
> let it communicate directly?

The whole "we're running out" thing is a bit overblown.  We have a number 
of universities who are sitting on far more IP space than they will ever 
use.   How many of those class A ranges were horribly mis-allocated?

There is a big three letter company in RTP that uses public IP's 
internally.  Why?!?  There is no need, since they are not publicly 
routable hosts in the first place.  We're talking about a fairly 
substantial address pool.  I've worked at a few larger companies that have 
Class B (or even multiple Class B) allocations and use them for desktop 
machines that would be perfectly happy to use NAT.

IMHO, some of these entities with larger allocations should be required to 
justify their continued ownership of these IP's or lose them.