3 ms·
I figure one change that will happen at the beginning of this "crisis" will be that ISPs will start NATing traffic, as tptacek said. A lot of ISPs already have
by mcs 16y ago
I figure one change that will happen at the beginning of this "crisis" will be that ISPs will start NATing traffic, as tptacek said.
A lot of ISPs already have policies for not having daemons on ports, so they could use that as justification for not having your own IP completely accessible from every port (which I don't believe would be possible without explicit port forwarding from the ISP itself).
What would this mean for end users' internet? Not much, but IPv4 IPs would be shared by multiple users (hopefully not many at first). A lot of websites have session policies and all sorts of mess based on the remote address, so it will be interesting to see how the aging webapps deal with the change.
I figure servers will get first priority at v4 addresses. Yeah, there's useless crap going on like IRC vhosts, but I figure once the market closes in on the addresses people will likely sell them (hell, I know people squatting on address blocks until the 'apocalypse', thinking they'll score a huge profit!).
Fun times.
- quux 16y agoBut wouldn't the end users be behind a double NAT in this scenario? (ISP's nat, end user's router's NAT.) Lots of voip protocols break when they try to deal with double NAT, and I'm sure there are other that will break too.
- ay 16y agoEven single NAT is not trivial when a few hundred thousands of active users are behind it, just because of the sheer scale. For a major part of the users "The Internet" == "The Web", and applications like Skype use any available transport including avian carriers, this limits the impact. But does having NAT increase the code complexity and increase the maintenance cost ? It does. So, I would treat it as a short-term high-interest loan. If you do not have other choice - sure, go for it. But if you can avoid it - you will avoid a couple of gray hairs too.