Add to that a transition model that
_requires_ that every host be dual-stacked before the first
v6-only node appears and you've got a horrible
chicken-and-egg problem where nobody has any incentive to
create a critical mass of dual-stacked hosts.
If that was true, you'd be right, but it's not, therefore
you are wrong.
From an operator viewpoint, IPv6 can be deployed without dual-stack
either by using 6PE on an MPLS core, or by building an IPv6 overlay
core using tunnels. Neither requires dual-stack everywhere, in fact
both models of deployment are desirable specifically because they
focus the change on just one part of the network.
NAT-PT was a reasonable solution to this (with a few tweaks),
since it could make hosts _appear_ to be dual-stacked with
little effort, but it offended the purists and was killed
despite there being nothing to replace it.
What's this about NAT-PT being killed? I still see vendor literature
which mentions NAT-PT support. If it works, and it is implemented,
then people will use it.
Same thing goes for Application Layer Gateways, i.e. proxies.
I don't think any network operator is in the business of being an
IETF purist. It is desirable that hardware and software adheres to
standards but it is more important for them to *WORK*!!! And if there
is a standards vacuum, that will not stop deployment.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf