Austin Schutz wrote
the ipv6 vs. NAT battle is over in the marketplace.
Especially now that the size of the routing table is not a problem
anymore.
So the real question is: Given NAT, what are the best
solutions to the long term challenges?
A protocol that would be only v4 with more bits in the first place, with
routers / NAT boxes that would pad/unpad extra zeroes (also including
extra TBD fields). As this would be 100% compatible with v4 this could
be deployed without too many headaches.
This was called "v4 compatible" in IPv6, unfortunately the address
format was not the same as IPv6 unicast and it was never deployed.
A while ago came the analog telephone. Some said that it was
un-maintainable and would result in the world phone system collapsing.
ISDN was the solution that would have saved us from the evil analog
phone.
Later came NAT. Some said that it was un-maintainable and would result
in the Internet collapsing. IPv6 was the solution that would have saved
us from the evil NAT.
Also came memory issues with the global routing table. Some, including
me, said it was un-maintainable and would result in the Internet
collapsing. IPv6 was the solution that would have saved us from the evil
ever-growing routing table.
I was wrong.
Today, 90% of the phones in the world are still analog. Including mine,
in the capital of California and my buddies' in the heart of Silicon
Valley.
Today, 99+% of the hosts in the world still run v4, including mine and
99+% of the reader's hosts.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf