> From: "Michel Py"
<michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
>> Tim Chown wrote:
>> If you deploy IPv6 NAT, you may as well stay with IPv4.
> You're the one who convinced me some three years ago that there will
> be IPv6 NAT no matter what, what's the message here?
I think Tim's point is that the only realistic options are:
i) IPv4+NAT
ii) IPv6 without NAT.
The IPv6+NAT option makes little (no?) economic/technical sense - it has all
the operational downsides of IPv4+NAT, plus to which you have the cost/hassle
of deploying v6.
> and possibly allocate PI to everybody which is another pre-requisite
> to get rid of NAT.
We aren't *ever* going to give everyone PI space (at least, PI space in
whatever namespace the routers use to forward packets), any more than we are
going to let them take their street addresses with them when they move.
Routing (i.e. path-finding) algorithms simply cannot cope with tracking 10^9
individual destinations (see prior message).
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf