North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Lazy network operators
> > ... > > anyway, there will absolutely be NAT in ipv6 enterprise networks, but the > > reason for it won't be a shortage of globally unique address space. > > Hmmm, or rather, there just wont be any demand for IPv6 deployment, at > least from the edges (consumers, small/medium networks). Why bother > changing if, despite the (almost indefinitely) availability of sparse > address space, one can not claim a tiny piece as ones' own? Which is > IPv4's only problem, at least as seen from the edges. ipv6 solves problems that large providers have, or speculate that they'll have, and at some point the edge/enterprise will adopt a dual stack approach just to be reachable by 3G-etc, assuming that 3G-etc ever stops having the 6to4/ISATAP/etc features it'll have to have before it has v6 at all. so, theoretically, there's a tipping point where dualstack or even v6-only will make sense even to someone who refuses the lockins and stays with a NAT-based or proxy-based design. > Provider independence (to some degree, even by DNS A6 or otherwise) > for all should have been IPv6's biggest selling point. It doesnt have > it, judging by multi6 it's not likely it ever will, and hence it's > similarly unlikely there ever will be any real demand for v6. provider independence is not a clear virtue in the eyes of those powerful enough to sway vendors toward implementation -- that is, people with billion dollar annual capital budgets. it may not even be a clear virtue in the eyes of the edge/enterprise consumers who want to avoid lockin, since they've gotten comfortable with NAT and proxies over the years, and since in a post-CIDR world, everybody knows that the equilibrium between can-route and can-qualify has to be more toward can-route and the people who can't-qualify just need to make other arrangements. i dearly wish i had understood this market equation at the time i was pushing for A6/DNAME, since at that time i stupidly thought that this was a technical problem and the people on the other side of the argument just didn't understand the technical issues well enough. (oops.)
|