On 17/02/2007, at 3:01 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
It's an interesting problem, though. If you ran an enterprise with 23 million employees, and an ever increasing number of them needed a permanent connection to the Internet, what would you do? On that scale, and given a certain amount of centralised control of content and infrastructure, what looks more expensive? NAT or IPv6?
End-to-end IP connectivity is so passe. I'd give them proxy servers for HTTP, and servers per network for SMTP/POP3/IMAP etc. (DNS intentionally left off - why do end users need it at this point?). Forget about SIP NAT and all that similar trash - have it talk to network local SBCs (or similar). They probably don't /really/ need to exchange IP with people outside their network, most will only care that they can browse [local auction site]. I suspect such an approach would suit [country] well, infact. Maybe [vendor H] should go in to the proxy server market. It wouldn't be hard, [vendor N] proxy servers are little more than flashed up PCs - not hard to copy^Wduplicate^Wtake inspiration from. So, now which is more expensive? NAT, IPv6, or Proxying/local servers? Consider that many organisations already run proxy servers for authentication reasons, and don't allow any end user IP outside their organisation.. -- Nathan Ward