The IPv6 "chickens and eggs" discussion could (and probably will) go on
forever:
service provider -> no content
content provider -> no customers
manufacturers -> no content or customers
IPv6 is the right answer, but for all of the above it costs money to
implement, with no return on investment (without everyone else doing their
bit to progress its rollout). It's therefore not going to happen in a
suitable timescale to avoid the necessity of 'propping-up' IPv4.
I don't like CGN, but the reality is that we're stuck with it. On this
basis, it's a case of looking for the least-problematic solution.
A dedicated, shared prefix (not from 1918) is the lowest risk for address
conflicts, and easiest to manage and control.
Daryl
On 2 December 2011 16:03, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Subject: RE: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
Date: Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 09:15:16AM -0500 Quoting Lee Howard (
lee(_at_)asgard(_dot_)org):
Which problem did ISPs create?
By dragging their feet to the inevitable roll-out of v6 they checked
the demand for consumer electronics compatible with v6. If v6 connectivity
had been norm 6 years ago we'd have more v6-ready devices deployed today.
The problem CGN partially solves is providing connectivity for IPv4-only
consumer electronics. Renumbering the home network within RFC1918
doesn't provide additional connectivity.
When the home router is reconfigured to not have the same prefix on
the inside as on the outside, connectivity will improve. It won't be
"Internet" (couldn't be without real addresses on all interfaces)
but something closely resembling it. A lot more satisfactory than the
unexplainable failure with identical addresses inside and out.
--
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
HUMAN REPLICAS are inserted into VATS of NUTRITIONAL YEAST ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk7Y9rQACgkQ02/pMZDM1cWclwCeI�ාொ�볖뮵�
4gQAoJiFArSjOeYEIiK41C6l7LwbyGkE
=Jflb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf