[99653] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Mon Oct 1 14:43:45 2007
In-Reply-To: <013c01c80455$1856eba0$403816ac@atlanta.polycom.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:39:16 -0400
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
From: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 12:56 PM -0500 10/1/07, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>...
>The fundamental flaw in the transition plan is that it assumes every host will dual-stack before the first v6-only node appears. At this point, I think we can all agree it's obvious that isn't going to happen.
>
>NAT-PT gives hosts the _appearance_ of being dual-stacked at very little up-front cost. It allows v6-only hosts to appear even if there still remain hosts that are v4-only, as long as one end or the other has a NAT-PT box. The chicken and egg problem is _solved_. When v4-only users get sick of going through a NAT-PT because it breaks a few things, that will be their motivation to get real IPv6 connectivity and turn the NAT-PT box off -- or switch it around so they can be a v6-only site internally.
>
>The alternative is that everyone just deploys multi-layered v4 NAT boxes and v6 dies with a whimper. Tell me, which is the lesser of the two evils?
Stephen -
Very well said...
Now the more interesting question is: Given that we're going
to see NAT-PT in a lot of service provider architectures to make
deploying IPv6 viable, should it be considered a general enough
transition mechanism to be Proposed Standard or just be a very
widely deployed Historic protocol?
Oh wait, wrong mailing list... ;-)
/John
