[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition
On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> 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"?
Lee - I believe that transition without NAT44 is still possible; I was simply
refuting a theory that raising a louder alarm a few years back would have made
a material difference in the present state. As Ted noted, IPv6 lacks customer
demand so attempts to "push" it prior to actual depletion (and service provider
demand) doesn't yield significant results.
As usual, we'll try to overcome the inertia by activities which create a sense
of demand (USG IPv6 mandate, World IPv6 Day, etc.) and hope that when combined
with enlightened early adopters, specific market real demand (e.g. smartphones),
and now actual depletion, we'll actually have enough takeup to build momentum.
To the extent that there's a policy proposal that would help this along, this
is the right mailing list to discuss.
President and CEO