On 03/27/06 at 1:51pm -0800, Austin Schutz <tex(_at_)off(_dot_)org> wrote:
This is reasonable, but there is no realistic path to ipv6 that the
known world can reasonably be expected to follow.
I think a good number of exclusively-IPv4-using* realists (like myself)
will disagree with you here. (* Exclusively-IPv4-using except at
conferences like IETF and NANOG where native IPv6 access is provided.)
NAT is a done deal. It's well supported at network edges. It solves
the addressing issue, which was what the market wanted. It voted for NAT with
dollars and time. It is the long term solution - not because it is better, but
because it is.
NAT (plus CIDR) was the short-term solution, and is realistic as a
medium-term solution. In the long term, though, I don't think it will be
the only solution.
So the real question is: Given NAT, what are the best solutions to
the long term challenges?
You seem to assume that IPv4 w/ NAT and IPv6 are mutually exclusive. I
disagree. I have IPv4 and NAT at home, for example, but my hosts all can
support IPv4/IPv6 dual stack. If my DSL provider starts doing IPv6
DHCP-PD, I will make sure I have a gateway box that can do both IPv4 w/
NAT and IPv6 w/ DHCP-PD, and run everything dual stack. That way I can
start accessing my own hosts without stupid static NAT/PAT tricks, but
still access the IPv4 Internet directly.
And if someday I want to switch to a new ISP who prefers not to give out
IPv4 addresses at all, that'll be fine with me, as long as my ISP provides
me IPv4 translation services to reach that portion of the Internet that is
still IPv4-only at that point.
Ietf mailing list