[99654] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Oct 1 15:11:57 2007
To: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>
Cc: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:16 EDT."
<p06240806c326ec055024@[192.168.4.143]>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:11:02 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1191265862_3768P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:16 EDT, John Curran 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?
"Historic" usually refers to "stuff we've managed to mostly stamp out production
use".
So it boils down to "Do you think that once that camel has gotten its nose
into the tent, he'll ever actually leave?".
(Consider that if (for example) enough ISPs deploy that sort of migration
tool, then Amazon has no incentive to move to IPv6, and then the ISP is stuck
keeping it around because they don't dare turn off Amazon).
--==_Exmh_1191265862_3768P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHAUZGcC3lWbTT17ARAt4oAKCL4o8oUC7PKor8q2b5LBeKph0fEwCg8kOu
LKw0Gs7M4llACdsezLljklk=
=yLf5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1191265862_3768P--
