[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition
Jason tried to refocus the thread.
Forget the past fifteen years. It is past.
John, Tony, you are saying, "There is no way to avoid extensive deployment of
large-scale NAT44 in ISP networks"?
I have a hard time accepting that, since nobody wants it. It runs contrary to
everyone's interest. It is a temporary solution at best, so companies have to
deal with both LSN and IPv6, instead of just IPv6. Is everyone really resigned
----- Original Message ----
> From: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> To: Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 6:06:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > If the IANA pool had run dry in 2009, the media attention we are seeing
> > past week would have already occurred, and CIOs would have already started
> > efforts that are just now getting underway. The point is that dual-stack
> > requires sufficient time to keep the old one working, so waiting until that
> > is no longer an option as the starting point is guaranteed to create
> > modes.
> > There is no one place to assign blame here, and blame was never my intent.
> > If I had not put out my graph in 2005, attention on the consumption rate
> > from IANA might have been ignored until it was too late to have any
> > significant effect on the date, because Geoff's graphs from that time said
> > 2019. If the RIR's collectively had not changed the practice of when & how
> > much to acquire from IANA at one time, the pool would have clearly burned
> > down at least 2 years ago.
> > The point is simply that an opportunity for a graceful transition was lost
> > because high level attention to the issue was deferred to the point where
> > was too late.
> Hah. High-level attention doesn't drive deployment (except in a central-
> planning or heavily regulated environment), a successful business case
> drives deployment.
> The opportunity for graceful transition was lost when we both failed
> to include transparent interoperability and then further provided no
> additional functionality to drive deployment. Reference RFC 1669.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.