[128056] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Looking for comments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Fri Jul 23 17:19:46 2010
From: "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org>
To: "'William Herrin'" <bill@herrin.us>,
"'Brian E Carpenter'" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimB1Px6J-y3y1-wTFXtqFc4kZEs9dv7mtdqobTt@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:19:26 -0400
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> > I think it's
> > more reasonable to describe solutions for them than to rule their
> > problem out of order.
>
> In that, you are surely correct. But frankly, having read 4.3 I have a
> hard time taking it seriously as an early-stage IPv6 transition
> mechanism. It reads to me like pie in the sky.
Section 4.3 (IPv6-only core) makes sense, if you define "core" as
"customer edge to peering edge." ISPs won't save much IPv4 address
space by numbering their core routers into IPv6, but if they assign IPv6
addresses to Dual-stack Lite routers and LSNs, they have a transition
plan. I can't say whether it's a viable plan, but it's a plan.
> I can see 4.4 as a late stage mechanism when we're slowly dismantling
> our IPv4 networks... I can also see it as an under-the-hood mechanism
> for deploying new integrated technologies (utility meters, IPTV, etc).
I think that's exactly the scenario it describes. IPv6 plus an
IPv4-stretcher (NAT444, DS-Lite) is the crustimony proseedcake.
Lee
