North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

  • From: Stephen Sprunk
  • Date: Mon Oct 01 22:46:48 2007

Thus spake <[email protected]>
"Historic" usually refers to "stuff we've managed to mostly stamp
out production use".

So it boils down to "Do you think that once that camel has gotten
its nose into the tent, he'll ever actually leave?".

This particular camel will be here until we manage to get v4 turned off, regardless of what status the IETF dogmatists assign it. Once that happens, though, there will be no need for NAT-PT anymore :-)

(Consider that if (for example) enough ISPs deploy that sort of
migration tool, then Amazon has no incentive to move to IPv6, and
then the ISP is stuck keeping it around because they don't dare
turn off Amazon).

That depends. If Amazon sees absolutely no ill effects from v6 users reaching it via v4, then they obviously have little technical incentive to migrate. OTOH, if that is true, then all the whining about how "evil" NAT-PT is is obviously bunk. We can't have it both ways, folks: either NAT-PT breaks things and people would move to native v6 to get away from it, or NAT-PT doesn't break things and there's no reason not to use it.


Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking