Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
Interesting work, but IMHO anything that extends the life of IPv4 does active harm. I&#x27;d prefer if these addresses stay out of the pool so scarcity increases and forces people to upgrade.<p>IPv4 is fundamentally too small, period. There are already more people and computers on Earth than possible IPv4 addresses even if it were perfectly optimally used. It leads us further down a path in which everything is behind increasingly starved NATs, making point to point connectivity more and more difficult. Now we are seeing NATs in front of carrier-grade NAT and other madness.<p>... and no, NAT is not a security feature. You can and almost always do have a firewall in front of IPv6. If you <i>really</i> want NAT there is IPv6 NAT, but it allows you to have all mappings be 1:1 eliminating the need for port starvation madness and making P2P always work. All internal IPs get their own external IP, but those can be random and rotated if you want.