[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition
> To: Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
> Let's be honest, the IPv4 network is going to suck. We cannot maintain even
> limited hack of end to end connectivity we have now with IPv4 in the long run.
> The IPv6 network will do its job and in some ways be even better (especially
> after it's patched up the way operators want). User won't want to use the IPv4
> network. Content providers won't want to use the IPv4 network. That old IPv4
> PS3 will have problems with hosted games (which are p2p) on the IPv4 network.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. So why do ISPs have to spend loads of money
to provided degraded service? Why don't ISPs *not* do large-scale NAT44
(which is equivalent to NAT444)?
I can think of a few reasons:
1. Fear of losing customers to the competition.
2. A moral position that providing connectivity is an ISP's duty.
3. Fear of blame from consumer electronics vendors who aren't ready.
4. Fear of recriminations from government/consumers' groups
Is there any reason we can't collectively deprecate NAT444, and decide not to
do it? If ISOC can coordinate World IPv6 Day so one major website
doesn't lose eyeballs to another when they dual-stack, isn't "No LSN!"
the same thing?
If this intent, with Tony and Geoff's RIR runout projections, are clear
to the consumer electronics industry, where's the harm? The requirement
to update existing equipment belongs to the people who made is deficient,
and the consumer who bought it.
Given the legal complications LSN introduces, I don't think government
will go after ISPs. Especially if they're involved in the decision and
> Supporting old Windows 95/98 boxes (which aren't even supported by M$
> anymore) and other obsolete equipment isn't the ISP's job, and the government
> isn't going to tell them otherwise
PS: John, I take your point. This doesn't seem to be heading toward
an ARIN policy proposal, so I'll take it over to NANOG.