[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition
On 2/8/2011 3:11 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> If all of this can
> happen in the time period between IANA depletion and when the first
> organizations are forced to build green field IPv6-only networks, then
> dependance on NAT can be mostly avoided as a protocol translation
Actually, IANA would have already run out if not for there already being
green field IPv6-only networks AND there already being huge LSN
deployments (even using bogon space).
> The important point here is the people that
> feel the pain of the poorly operating translation services are the people
> who refuse to upgrade. When the pain of poor performance outweighs the
> pain of upgrading the problem will resolve itself.
Right now we are stuck with partial pains either way. Now that market
pressure is starting to exert itself, we see the core networks finally
converging and deploying proper peering/pathing of IPv6 (still work to
be done). As they complete, the eyeballs can turn up IPv6 without the
problem of isolation deadness, which in turn means the content providers
can use AAAA. At the same time, many providers will either offer
dualstack with LSN deployments or NAT64. In both cases, the end to end
model is shot beyond recovery and pushes applications towards IPv6.
The good news is, core/provider based NAT should be short lived. It is
too painful for anyone to want to keep it.