[81905] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Jul 3 12:10:48 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.63.0507022143380.2568@jvc>
Cc: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>,
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net>, nanog@merit.edu
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 09:10:16 -0700
To: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
> Good luck finding an implementation. The v6 designers have
> recommended
> against it due to the sheer *stupidity* of the concept, and as a
> result, I
> know of no extant implementations of NAT on v6 out there.
This is no market. Stunningly enough, IPv4 didn't have NAT back in
the early 80's either. I'm guessing that as soon as someone trying
to get real work done discovers that they have to renumber their
network and all the places where IPv6 addresses have become embedded
when they change providers that a market for NATv6 will magically
appear.
> The whole point of 128 bits of space is to allow, essentially,
> embedding of
> routing metadata into the address with *still* enough address bits
> left over
> for any possible size of subnetwork.
The whole point of 128 bits was that it wasn't NSAPs.
Rgds,
-drc
