IPv6 is just fine. The problem is not the technology we would
transition to, it is the lack of transition strategy and refusal to
think about deployment strategy in some quarters.
While they were building the big dig in Boston they actually built an
entire interchange from scratch and then demolished it. The temporary
interchange was necessary because you can't stop traffic in Boston for
ten years while you build the permanent one. We need the same for
IPv6.
The problem with IPv4 address space exhaustion is that it is much less
of a problem for end users than some imagine. If you have an IPV4
address and someone else does not, that is their problem, not
something you want to spend money for.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Masataka Ohta
<mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp> wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I assert that regardless of whether NAT66 is a good or a bad thing,
anything that layers on IPv6 must be NAT66 tolerant.
Because IPv6 is a bad thing, there should be nothing on IPv6.
Observation: Without NAT44 the internet would already have run out of
address space.
Observation: With NAT44 and unicast class E (and part of D) the
IPv4 Internet would not run out of address space for the time
being.
I think that it is
now very clear that the IPv6 transition will take at least another
decade
Considering that development of IPv6 did not take so many years,
it is better to have another IPng which is more easily deployable
than IPv6.
If we accept these two observations we arrive at a proof that NAT66 is
unavoidable.
Only if IPv6 were worth deploying.
Masataka Ohta
--
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf