XPost: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet   
   From: redelm@ev1.net.invalid   
      
   In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet Morten Reistad  wrote in part:   
   > We are burying the world in NAT, and yet more NAT. It is   
   > time to set the net free, and get bigger addresses.   
      
   Perhaps.  But why go from 32-bits all the way to 128?  It goes   
   against the grain to agree with Skybuck Flying, but aside from   
   the additional overhead, there are serious privacy concerns --   
   some of these bits will get used for persistant identifiers   
   (MAC) and some governments may mandate some for social numbers.   
      
   The nice thing about IPv4 is it _has_ all this DHCP and NAT.   
   It is difficult to identify any particular user, and impossible   
   once logs expire (1wk-2yr).  With IPv6, it would be possible   
   for anyone to do so, and long after the fact.   
      
   -- Robert   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)