[137812] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 19 21:05:32 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <552452.5847.qm@web114715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:03:08 -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 19, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>> So, in essence, you are advocating not to
>>> interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
>>=20
>> I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
>> working as it's pretty clear that
>> the available solution set is fairly broken.
> Fair enough. This approach will, however, relegate IPv6-only networks =
to second class citizenship status. Access to the "real" Internet will =
require IPv4 and IPv6-only will be seen as the inferior choice, to be =
avoided as best as you can. Not quite a ringing endorsement for IPv6, in =
other words.
>=20
> This position also assumes that there will be enough IPv4 addresses =
to go around for everybody to dual stack. Anybody not so fortunate will =
simply be left out in the cold.
>=20
> - Zed
>=20
>=20
>=20
Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no question.
However, I don't expect it to work. I don't expect us to be able to =
resolve
the issues with it, and I expect that to fairly rapidly serve as =
motivation for
content providers to adopt IPv6.
Owen
