nanog mailing list archives
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems
From: John Curran <jcurran () mail com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:14:55 -0400
At 12:02 PM +0200 10/3/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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.
I'm with Randy on this one... While we will have increased IPv6 deployment as we get closer to IPv4 free pool depletion, the size of the IPv4 installed base is very impressive and the task of moving it all to dual-stack may not be achievable w/o NAT-PT and a set of defined ALG's.
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.
That's great, guys, if "IPv4 with massive levels of NAT" actually resembles today's Internet and is actually a viable choice. Once free pool depletion occurs and address reuse enters the equation, we've got high demand for block fragmentation and a tragedy of the commons situation where everyone's motivations are to inject their longer prefixes and yell at others not to do the same. It's a very different circumstance that we have today with NAT and it only gets worse as utilization increases. /John
Current thread:
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6), (continued)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Stephen Sprunk (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Daniel Senie (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems John Curran (Oct 03)
- RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems michael.dillon (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 04)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 03)
- RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) michael.dillon (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Church, Charles (Oct 03)
- RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) JAKO Andras (Oct 03)
- RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Church, Charles (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Eliot Lear (Oct 04)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 04)