North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

  • From: Larry J. Blunk
  • Date: Tue Mar 18 11:45:49 2008

Randy Bush wrote:
And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.

your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think it will scale well?
     For the size of a NANOG meeting, it seemed to be
sufficient.  I don't think I'd recommend trying to put
thousands of users behind it though.

i suspect that all the nat-pt implementations are old and not well
maintained.  this needs to be fixed.

  Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt.
I could see a case for very controlled environments with
uniform clients (with robust v6 support).   Outside of that,
native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's
lightning talk) and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more
likely deployment candidates.  That said, nat-pt is very useful
for exercising native v6 support in clients and their applications.