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: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Wed Oct 03 06:22:25 2007

On 3-okt-2007, at 9:42, Randy Bush wrote:

but the reality is ipv4 works and ipv6 doesn't.

It has very little deployment at this point in time, that's something different.

and unless the ivory tower purists get off their doomed thrones, ipv6 will die stillborn.

And unless the purists, whatever their living arrangements, get to keep out at least some of the bad stuff that's in IPv4, the entire effort to move to IPv6 will be a waste of time because we'll all be in the exact same mess only with harder to remember addresses.

there are more ipv4 nats within a 1km radius of here than there are
v6-enabled networks on the planet.  and i am at the nexus of ipv6
deployment in the world, networking central in tokyo.

So? Still 1157 million IPv4 addresses to burn, can't realistically expect people to upgrade to IPv6 unless they have to.

the reality is you have a choice.  nat-pt or ipv4 with massive natting
forever.  it's not a choice i like, but it's life.  get over it.

I'd rather have IPv4 with massive NAT and IPv6 without NAT than both IPv4 and IPv6 with moderate levels of NAT.

The tricky part is that we're not going to agree on that as a community, so the status quo will persist until someone cares enough to do something drastic that moves the entire industry in one direction or another.