[137714] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Feb 18 11:09:29 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <398436.89934.qm@web114716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:05:45 -0800
To: Zed Usser <zzuser@yahoo.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>>> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
>> NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
>> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
>> to have to deal with these issues in any case?
>>>=20
>> No, we need to move forward with IPv6 on all levels in
>> order to reduce the need for these solutions.
> Reduce, yes. Remove, no. Without a global cutoff date for the IPv6 =
transition, it's not like IPv4 is going to disappear overnight. =
Furthermore, without any IPv4/IPv6 translation, the first IPv6 only =
networks are going to be awfully lonely.=20
>=20
That depends on the number of IPv4 only networks vs. dual stack networks =
when that happens.
>> Joining the IPv4/IPv6 domains doesn't work out all that
>> well and a dependency on doing so is
>> broken in a number of ways, many of which are documented in
>> the draft.
> We agree that IPv4/IPv6 domain interoperability is broken, but it's =
not like we can ignore the issue. So, unless I'm very much mistaken, the =
NAT/PAT issues are going to have to be dealt with. Or do you propose an =
alternative solution?
>=20
Dual stacking all the IPv4 networks is the alternative solution. =
Initially it will be the IPv6 only users that are lonely.
Relatively quickly, it will be the IPv4 only networks that are lonely as =
the bulk of users will, I suspect, become
IPv6 preferred relatively quickly once there is no more IPv4 at the RIR =
level.
> Please note that this is not an anti-IPv6 stance. To me it looks like =
the problems plaguing NAT444 need to be solved just to make IPv4 and =
IPv6 co-exist. Perhaps not the very same problems, but similar NAT/PAT =
problems in any case. Please do tell me I'm wrong. Bonus points for =
explaining why I am wrong or how the IPv4/IPv6 thing is to be solved =
without NAT/PAT.
>=20
I think that effort spent trying to solve those problems is better spent =
moving existing IPv4 things forward to
dual stack. You only need to solve those problems to the extent that =
there are meaningful things still
trapped in an IPv4-only world. Move them to dual stack and the problem =
goes away.
Owen
