[99663] 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)
Tue Oct 2 05:48:14 2007
In-Reply-To: <D9FDC902-FAAD-4F71-B302-6EC184FFA8DE@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 05:36:56 -0400
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
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 10:43 AM +0200 10/2/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>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.
>
>Yeah right. Youtube is going to switch to IPv6 because I have trouble viewing their stuff through NAT-PT.
For you? now? Not likely. About the time that a very large number
of new Internet sites are being connected via IP6 because there is
little choice, that's a different story.
Providers would be likely be telling customers to send their complaints
to YouTube, and that everyone's in the same situation until Youtube
gets a real connection.
The proxy&tunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely based
on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks as NAT-PT,
only without the attention to ALG's that NAT-PT will receive, and
tunnelling is still going to require NAT in the deployment mode once
IPv4 addresses are readily available. For now, HTTPS proxy or a IPv4
tunnel over IPv6 works fine, but most folks don't really care about
IPv6 deployment right now. They're looking for a model which works
3 years from now, when the need to deploy IPv6 is clear and present.
At that point, there's high value in having a standard NAT-PT / ALGs
approach for providing limited IPv4 backwards compatibility.
/John
