Noel Chiappa wrote:
There isn't going to be an "v4->v6 transition". If you're lucky, there
will be a very long (many decades) period of IPv4/IPv6
interoperability.
+1
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I can construct a plausible deployment model for IPv6 based on NAT
boxes. But I can't see a plausible model which does not involve NAT44,
NAT46 and NAT66 during the transition period and since I am
anticipating that lasting around thirty years, I can't see much point
in modeling what comes after.
+1
This might sound like a completely off the wall suggestion. But is
it possible that we could use an IPv4 extension header to carry the
internal address of a NAT-ed host in some way and thus preserve
end-to-end addressability?
The problem with IP with IP extensions is that too often, sooner or
later they have to be implemented in silicon on the high-end platform.
The "not invented here" syndrome may be a significant obstacle if it
does not come from within a prominent router vendor.
Of course one objection that would be made against this is likely to
be that it solves the problem a bit too well and eliminates the need
for IPv6 entirely. The other objection is going to be that we are now
so far into the deployment of IPv6 that 'it is too late to change'.
That too.
What if the key to IPv6 deployment is the realization that IPv6 can
only be deployed after we have solved the IPv4 address exhaustion
problem?
I suspect that people with vested interests in IPv6 will not like this
idea, as solving the v4 exhaustion problem would eliminate a
considerable incentive to deploy v6 and create a threat to the very
existence of v6.
In any case, I don't think anything is going to happen for at least 3
years. As of today we are in the waiting game; we have to let IPv4
exhaust and assess who is hurting and how much pain everyone feels.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf