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: michael.dillon
  • Date: Thu Oct 04 08:57:53 2007

> Well, if 95% of the people in a position to do this think 
> it's worth repeating this effort for IPv6, my objections 
> aren't going to stop them. But if the majority or even a 
> significant minority don't want to play, then IPv6 NAT is 
> going to work a lot worse than IPv4 NAT.  

What if only 5% of the people want to do this, and that 5% represents a
couple of thousand people who configure enterprise network
infrastructure. What if only 1% of that couple of thousand people are
demanding that their router supplier supports NAT-PT. That is 20
enterprise customers that are telling their vendor to support NAT-PT or
lose their business. In my experience 20 decision makers with purchasing
power is more than enough to make things happen.

> 5. Everyone do whatever suits their needs like what happened in IPv4

Since this is what is going to happen regardless of your survey, what is
the point? Some of us are interested in getting things done now because
the time for big architectural changes has long past. We have to work
with the resources available to us today.

> And: if people start using NAT in IPv6 I will:
> a. Implement ALGs and application workarounds to accommodate it
> b. Not do anything, it's their problem if stuff breaks
> c. Break stuff that goes through IPv6 NAT on purpose to prove a point

d. Do whatever my employer decides is appropriate, i.e. some A, some B
and don't even think about C or you'll be on the street before

You may know a lot about IPv6 network design but you don't understand
survey design very well.

--Michael Dillon