I'm not sure which world you live in, but if you're doing it
based on
"number of publicly available IPs behind
firewalls" rather than "number of
end hosts connected somehow to the internet" I think
you'll find the
numbers quite different.
Bout the only group I can think of that could give true
numbers of
"connected hosts" versus "routed IPs" in
this situation is google.
Anyone from google able to contribute some end hosts behind
NAT
numbers?
Finally, I find the idea of "internet engineering"
as a formal
process with no real inclusion of current real world
deployments
extraordinarily amusing, and I do hope its not the case in
general.
Please study why the internet grew how it did versus
standards-bodies
released networking and application protocols.
Adrian
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 2-okt-2007, at 17:35, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
> >So I'm sure you've explained to the firewall
vendors they should be
> >selling proxy boxes instead, and they've listened
to you. Sorry the
> >market has dictated solutions you don't like. Time
to move on, and
> >stop fighting a battle that's been lost.
>
> The type of firewalling you talk about only happens in
less than 1%
> of the sites connected to the internet. As a rule,
these firewalls
> break lots of legitimate stuff such as ECN, the window
scale option,
> path MTU discovery, etc, etc. The people who use them
are welcome to
> these problems; it would be ridiculous for the IETF to
work around
> this intentional breakage.
>
> As I said before, if you want to meddle in the middle,
do it right
> and say you don't support this stuff rather than play
coy during the
> setup phase and break sessions once they're established
and start
> using the newer features. (Although I wouldn't exactly
call RFCs 1191
> (1990) or 1323 (1992) "new".)
|
