michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Thu Aug 28 07:03:29 EDT 2008
> > Why shouldn't the company in question just deploy IPv6 and install
> > NAT-PT gateways to cover the next 2-3 years before
> > IPv6 transit is widely available?
> Please provide a vendor list for NAT-PT gateways that
> provide production level service/availability - today.
I would hope that the company in question would plan their deployment
exercise and not just rush out buying equipment and blasting out their
old network. As part of the planning exercise, they might go to the ARIN
IPv6 wiki at <http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Investigate_Middleboxes>
where they will note vendor names. If they contact said vendors, then
there is motivation for said vendors to provide production level service
and availabilty within the timeframe for implementation. Note that there
is also the possibility of consulting firms using open-source NAT-PT who
would then provide the SLA and support component.
Obviously, today, there is only one vendor on that page and no mention
where open-source NAT-PT can be found. I would hope that anyone with
information would log on to the wiki and update this page and others.
I recently discovered that there were a couple of people in my company
test and qualify DSL equipment for use on our IPv4 Broadband Internet
I asked them whether they were asking the vendors for their IPv6
considering that IPv4 exhaustion is only 2 to 3 years away. They were
but thanked me for the info on exhaustion and told me that they plan to
all the DSL vendors which they deal with, about their IPv6 roadmap.
More people need to do stuff like this, instead of just passively noting
vendor X does not support feature Y which you need to deploy IPv6. We
keep on sitting on our hands. We need to pester the vendors to supply
that we need. We have to deploy IPv6 in our labs and find out what works
doesn't. We need to ask our product managers why they haven't
exhaustion and IPv6 deployment into their product roadmaps.
In fact, a lot of companies are already doing all of these things, which
good but since it is simmering under the surface, many observers still
that the world is behind on IPv6. I don't think that it is as bad as
has really happened is that telco work practices now rule the Internet,
as the telco Internet deployment plans simmered under the surface
mid 90's before bursting out and consuming the Internet industry, now
is happening with v6. The difference is that there is no thriving
IPv6 ISP industry today, so when we compare the external appearance of
with 1995, it looks worse than it really is.
More information about the ARIN-PPML