On 31 May 2010, at 02:49, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Or we could do what we did last time and pretend that nobody will > deploy carrier grade NAT if we don't specify a way that it can work > without pain. Well, I'd be interested to know what your plan is. Do you think we should use DNS for everything, SRV to specify the location of every service, and make port numbers insignificant? Do you think this is better than IPv6, or that it will take any more time to deploy IPv6? And, what do you think of the NAT scaling problem that you are proposing we mutely suffer in perpetuity? I don't like IPv4+NAT for sure (my favourite has got to be A+P) however I really don't see anything but good coming of (A) not delaying IPv6 deployment any further and (B) making every arrangement to avoid NAT in future. This seems to work for everybody except the end-users, for whom this whole thing is completely insignificant, who drag the market with them into a state of complacency. They don't care. Therefore, I think we must elongate IPv4's life as much as possible, so as to give the unfortunate time to transition, but no more. Then, content providers and end-users can continue enjoying the 'net (albeit more slowly than usual due to all that translation load for all the usual purposes) while the faster and more capable Internet gradually transitions into use. This is the best we can do given that the dual-stack opportunity passed over a decade ago, and even then it was important enough to commence work on what was, and I think is, the obvious (if a little imperfect) plan for the future. That's where we stand today, everybody capable of IPv6, and nobody connected, while the red alert signs all begin to flash. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf