Hi Raul,
Raul Echeberria said the following on 27/7/07 03:04:
It is very clear. In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Do RIRs promote the use of real IP addresses instead of NAT? (Open
question, I don't really know the answer.) All I know is that I interact
with many ISPs from around the world who believe that NAT is their only
option, and believe that RIR membership is only for the biggest ISPs or
not for them, etc. Usually without even having checked the facts. :-(
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is
that probably the use of NAT will be increased in
developing countries when regional pools become
exhausted because most ISPs will not have the
economic power for compiting for IPv4 addresses
in a possible market while others ISPs continue accessing IPv4 addresses.
Completely agree.
Plus there is a body of opinion with the belief that IPv6 isn't the
solution to the problem and that NAT is. We might see forces pulling in
two directions... I've even had people ask me if they can "sell" their
IPv4 address space when it becomes valuable in the next year or two and
use NAT instead.
But I only wanted to point out that it is not
about LACNIC or Afrinic, so saying LACNIC and/or
Afrinic shoud do "something" is a wrong approach to the discussion.
Agreed also. Everyone needs to do something, but I think we need to
really figure out what this "something" is. I don't think prop-51 is it,
unfortunately.
philip
--
