From: John Curran (no email)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2007 - 08:14:55 EDT
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
|
|
|