Masataka - yes, you have voiced your e2e arguments - thank you for your work. We obviously disagree here, on a fundamental basis. I (and many others) disagree that IPv6 'has failed' and are in fact aggressively deploying it *right now* (across a spectrum of ISPs, content providers, enterprises). WRT aggregation, PI space excepted, there is an IPv6 advantage - the allocations are large enough (the more bits part) and meant to be expandable (policy) so you wouldn't need 31 non-aggregatable /16 blocks (real world example, BTW) - you would have one block. Anyway, I question the value of us going back and forth (again) as we both believe we are right. Yes, GOSIP was a now-laughable effort ... /TJ Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:51:08 To: <trejrco@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: IPv6 standard? trejrco@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > While the case for "transparent NAT" may be valid, A+P and other technologies may also have end to end transparency. > I believe IPv6 to also be a valid and valuable technology forthe > continued growth and expansion of the Internet. > (Even eliding the amount of change required to implement "e2e NAT", FYI, end to end NAT is already implemented and is running (several hundreds lines of code, essential part of which is 10 lines for forward/reverse translation and 100 lines for port number restriction). Because end to end NAT can be implemented with upward compatibility to legacy NAT, it can be deployed smoothly. NAT GW may be upgraded to end to end NAT, which is not visible to legacy end hosts. End hosts may be upgraded, which will start working after an end to end NAT gateway is installed. > and how this comes close to the amount of work (in many regards) > as deploying IPv6, w/o all of the same capabilities.) If it comes close to, it means it has failed totally, just as the amount of effort to deploy IPv6 is an evidence that IPv6 deployment has totally failed. As for capabilities, IPv6 is no better than IPv4 (with or without end to end NAT). > And FWIW, I also continue to believe 'the world' agrees with IPv6 > being 'the solution' ... Based not upon current traffic volumes > (of course), but rather the number of deployments IPv6 failed because of lack of not only deployments but also an essential feature. The objectives of IPng are to extend address space and to aggregate routing table aggressively. However, as has discussed recently on renumbering, IPv6 lacks the capability of renumbering, which makes aggressive aggregation impossible. > Or the US federal govt's re-invigorated push towards IPv6 ... Do you know that USG pushed towards CLNP? Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf