> Noel Chiappa wrote: > There isn't going to be an "v4->v6 transition". If you're lucky, there > will be a very long (many decades) period of IPv4/IPv6 interoperability. +1 > Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I can construct a plausible deployment model for IPv6 based on NAT > boxes. But I can't see a plausible model which does not involve NAT44, > NAT46 and NAT66 during the transition period and since I am > anticipating that lasting around thirty years, I can't see much point > in modeling what comes after. +1 > This might sound like a completely off the wall suggestion. But is > it possible that we could use an IPv4 extension header to carry the > internal address of a NAT-ed host in some way and thus preserve > end-to-end addressability? The problem with IP with IP extensions is that too often, sooner or later they have to be implemented in silicon on the high-end platform. The "not invented here" syndrome may be a significant obstacle if it does not come from within a prominent router vendor. > Of course one objection that would be made against this is likely to > be that it solves the problem a bit too well and eliminates the need > for IPv6 entirely. The other objection is going to be that we are now > so far into the deployment of IPv6 that 'it is too late to change'. That too. > What if the key to IPv6 deployment is the realization that IPv6 can > only be deployed after we have solved the IPv4 address exhaustion problem? I suspect that people with vested interests in IPv6 will not like this idea, as solving the v4 exhaustion problem would eliminate a considerable incentive to deploy v6 and create a threat to the very existence of v6. In any case, I don't think anything is going to happen for at least 3 years. As of today we are in the waiting game; we have to let IPv4 exhaust and assess who is hurting and how much pain everyone feels. Michel. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf