Re: Deployment Cases

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3 jan 2008, at 17:30, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

Yes, as you point out the generic answer to the problem is NAT-PT which was recently squashed after a cabal got together.

I think the second v6ops meeting in Vancouver showed a decent amount of interest in resurrecting it again. (This is becoming a bit of a third rate zombie movie, though.)

Pretty much everyone seems to now accept that we are going to run out of IPv4 addresses before IPv6 deployment is complete and that some form of address sharing is therefore inevitable.

Hold on, you're going a bit too fast there.

The most basic transition strategy would be a flag day. For obvious reasons, this doesn't work.

The second most basic transition strategy would be to add IPv6 until everyone is dual stack, and then start removing IPv4. This doesn't work either, because nobody has an incentive to add IPv6 until they can remove IPv4 and nobody can remove IPv4 until everyone is dual stack.

This means that the real transition MUST be such that there is a time during which there are both IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts. With improved NAT-PT this won't be any worse than IPv4+NAT and even without any form of NAT-PT it's still possible to get a lot done with proxies, so this isn't necessarily a problem.

The interesting thing is that running out of IPv4 addresses in and of itself doesn't make IPv6 more attractive, even though NOT running out of IPv4 addresses definitely makes IPv6 NOT attractive to most people. Even with IPv4 addresses all used up, you can still only talk to 0.1% of the internet over IPv6. With an IPv4 address that is shared through NAT you can probably reach 50% of the internet (everyone except others behind NAT who don't have any incoming ports mapped). However, the first value is only going to go up, while the second is only going to go down. So at some point, it starts making sense to do IPv6 or IPv6+IPv4NAT.

So it looks like much more NAT is actually a necessary intermediate step to get IPv6 deployed. We here at the IETF, the group of self- appointed people that should know better, should make sure that we don't get unduly stuck in that intermediate phase. That's why I am very much interested in bringing back NAT-PT: it gives people IPv6 with their NAT so the usefulness of IPv6 is enhanced as that of IPv4 deteriorates so it addresses both the temporary situation and the eventual goal of full IPv6 deployment.

Then take a look at what those companies are doing about it. Polaroid has already gone bankrupt

How is proactively going bankrupt useful?  (-:

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]