In message
<200101220422(_dot_)XAA16184(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>, Keith
Moore typed:
The IETF has done it's job with 6to4, but like you said we can't force
people to deploy it. But let's stop and think about 6to4. Aren't some of
the same "tricks" or ALG's that are planned to make applications work
with IPv4 NAT, applicable to 6to4? If so, then we must find solutions
now since 6to4 could be with us for many years.
Given that the whole point of 6to4 is to allow IPv6 packets to be
passed end-to-end without modification, I don't see how ALGs apply at
all. NAT-PT of course has similar issues to v4 NAT, but NAT-PT and
6to4 are different things.
Keith
2 ways forward are
1/ what you propose - provide clean, alternate
complete solutions for today's ISPs - 6to4 is only part of a big
system deployment- it would be nice to come up with smaller stageing
posts along the way....something i've wondered about:
NAT is predicated at least partly on the observation that a lot of
internet users don't appear to need to be "always on"
(i.e. like temporal locality
(not spatial locality) of telephone nets,
there's a distribution of use and it means that we can get away with
far less address allocated than users.....
I would suggest that if an ISP asks for address space based on a
number of users but then uses NATs they are misrepresenting the
number of users and should be given less address space:-)
(i think this is doubly fair since they make less use of addreses, AND
less applications are able to run to and from their users)
2/ make a clear business for ISPs to offer NAT free access as a
competetive advantage....
3/ here's a silly idea - take some of the address space and make it
client only. (i.e declare half the remaining address space to be
assymetric - truth in advertising...
since there's then no servers, you can use port expanders on the low
1024 bits of the tcp or udp port to get more addresses....(yes, port
nats, but as part of the official address allocation plan...)
cheers
jon