[99719] 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 (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Oct 3 03:35:22 2007
In-Reply-To: <20071002145550.GC34428@internode.com.au>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:50:09 +0200
To: Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:55, Mark Newton wrote:
>> ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like
>> network where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers
>> that be permit you to.
> No, they turn the Intenret into a network where you only get to
> deploy new IPv4 applications when the powers that be permit you to.
> So everyone will deploy IPv6 applications, which require no ALGs,
> instead.
> Isn't that a solution that everyone can be happy with?
Well, I can think of a couple of things that make me unhappy:
- IPv4 vs IPv6 is completely invisible to the user. I regularly run
netstat or tcpdump to see which I'm using, I doubt many people will
do that. So if IPv6 works and IPv4 doesn't, that will look like
random breakage to the untrained user rather than something they can
do something about.
- If we do NAT-PT and the ALGs are implemented and then the
application workarounds around the ALGs, it's only a very small step
to wide scale IPv6 NAT.
