> implying each device needs its own IPv4 address.
This implication is basically correct, actually. Sure, not every machine needs to be a server, but every people should have at least one. Everyone should have his own mail server. Every blogger should have his own web server. And so on. It's just a matter of basic civil liberties, like privacy and free speech, which currently aren't fully enabled, because most people don't have the amount of control they should have.
If we let giant NAT routers spread further, such control will be effectively impossible. Even for computer nerds. Even for owners of a freedom box[1].
As a side note, the correct response for security is not using giant NAT routers. It's getting rid of Windows.
Why is a native IPv4 address a "basic civil liberty"? It's a technical detail. Surely the "liberty" is "first class citizen of the Internet", right? "The ability to publish content, the ability to build applications, the ability to pass traffic"?
If IP addresses were truly and in principle a right, then surely everyone would also be entitled to an ASN and the right to publish their IP address on the provider of their choosing. But they aren't; it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go from a standing start to default-less full peer.
Without peering, the IP address is just a totem. You think it matters, but it doesn't; you've simply been licensed to speak on the Internet by your ISP.
That doesn't really bother me, but it should bother you, if you take your principles seriously. IPv6 isn't going to solve that problem (IPv6 does not magically end BGP RIB bloat). But overlay networks, which don't care whether they're running on top of IPv4, CLNP, IPX, or IPv6, do solve it.
Well, actually, I do think that being your own ISP is very important, maybe even crucial. Alas, it's currently difficult, as more and more network providers don't want to peer with the small players.
I know nothing about overlay networks. I need to dig further before I update my beliefs.
Realize that even in our bright and shiny IPv6 future, no top-tier provider is going to let you peer with them to publish your addresses. So long as routing is controlled by the majors, addresses are just totems.
Everyone should have his own mail server. Every blogger should have his own web server. And so on.
I want that about as much as I want my own personal DVD press, oil well, glass factory, operating theatre, coffee bean plantation and lawyer. (Although if my own mail server was as profitable as my own oil well, maybe...).
You can running multiple web and mail servers behind a single IP address. I personally am not doing this though because I have 5 IP addresses allocated to me, so I take advantage of them.
Yes you can, but if you don't have a public IP yourself, you have to find someone willing to share his own (supposing IP already ran out). Most likely, you'd have to trust him. So for maximum independence, you need to have your own IP.
I reckon relying on a friend is very close to ideal. But not strictly so.
As a side note, the correct response for security is not using giant NAT routers. It's getting rid of Windows.
For an otherwise reasonable comment, I have to say: What a load of bull.
The only machine I have ever gotten hacked was a Linux machine, since practically all attacks flowing on the net are Linux attacks.
I run a mixed environment of Windows and Linux and have zero issues, despite my entire LAN being exposed to the internet via IPv6 (obviously firewalled though).
Windows itself isn't insecure. It's a very nice and secure platform. Locked down, there are no problems at all. Users aer insecure. They are the problem.
If Linux had near the same marketshare as Windows, they would require access to install whatever new and fancy thing which came around, would have to be locked up, and voila, Linux would be ridden with all the same problems Windows have now.
This implication is basically correct, actually. Sure, not every machine needs to be a server, but every people should have at least one. Everyone should have his own mail server. Every blogger should have his own web server. And so on. It's just a matter of basic civil liberties, like privacy and free speech, which currently aren't fully enabled, because most people don't have the amount of control they should have.
If we let giant NAT routers spread further, such control will be effectively impossible. Even for computer nerds. Even for owners of a freedom box[1].
As a side note, the correct response for security is not using giant NAT routers. It's getting rid of Windows.
[1]: http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox