Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

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

 



Dual-Stack Lite, RFC6333 that makes these conversions using a single NAT by combining IPv6 address space with a common 192.0.0.0/29. This approach does not suffer from scaling limitations other than constraining access points to 6 IPv4 interfaces where IPv6 provides the native IP protocol. While taking a chunk out of 240/4 should not introduce any hardship, the intended use is for compound NAT topology seems aimed at retaining the provider's IPv4 infrastructure. Such inferior IPv4 networks will certainly expedite demand for IPv6 access.

Any IPv4 need can be satisfied by the CPE that conforms with RFC6333 at roughly the cost of the monthly service. Does it really make since to endorse a strategy that attempts to produce inferior networks to delay an upgrade and impact many services now offered over IPv4? This is likely to be significant mistake, IMHO.

-Doug

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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