[99760] 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 (Church, Charles)
Wed Oct 3 19:56:56 2007
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:45:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5F6EAA08-F944-48D1-A200-363974F8A44D@muada.com>
From: "Church, Charles" <cchurc05@harris.com>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
It's seems we're always confusing NAT with PAT (or NAT overload, or
whatever else you want to call it). One to one NAT rarely breaks stuff.
NAT-PT would need to follow that model, otherwise, yes, things will
break. It seems like an IPv6-only ISP would need to operate the NAT-PT
boxes, and dedicate a block of v4 addresses the size of the expected
concurrent online users to the NAT-PT box. Keep in mind that a v6 ISP
with 1 million customers won't need a million v4 addresses, for obvious
reasons. It's going to be considerably less than if each customer got a
v4 address. NAT-PT does seem like a viable short term solution. I'm
not sure though how to get current v4-only content providers to
dual-stack their stuff. Increased domain fees maybe for v4-only
domains...
Chuck=20
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Iljitsch van Beijnum
And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP =20
sessions, etc fail.
