Dual-Stack Lite, RFC6333 that makes these conversions using a single NAT
by combining IPv6 address space with a common 192.0.0.0/29. This
approach does not suffer from scaling limitations other than
constraining access points to 6 IPv4 interfaces where IPv6 provides the
native IP protocol. While taking a chunk out of 240/4 should not
introduce any hardship, the intended use is for compound NAT topology
seems aimed at retaining the provider's IPv4 infrastructure. Such
inferior IPv4 networks will certainly expedite demand for IPv6 access.
Any IPv4 need can be satisfied by the CPE that conforms with RFC6333 at
roughly the cost of the monthly service. Does it really make since to
endorse a strategy that attempts to produce inferior networks to delay
an upgrade and impact many services now offered over IPv4? This is
likely to be significant mistake, IMHO.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf