[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Joe Maimon]

RudOlph Daniel wrote:
> Hi Roger
> Your suggestion is that NAT-PT is not going to be a worker, which was 
> also the suggestion of RFC4966. So what alternatives do we have for 100% 
> v6 access to v4 and how can we live with less than 100% if the solution 
> is as you suggest not yet available?
> 
> Seems to me that a short term strategy has turned into a longterm 
> roadblock to v6 progress?
> 
> Rudi
> 

I was under the impression that complaints about ipv6-ipv4 
interoperability generally refer to the idealogical reasons that did 
their best to sink nat-pt, even while grudgingly acknowledging

"
    However, it is clear that in some circumstances an IPv6-IPv4 protocol
    translation solution may be a useful transitional solution,
"

Due to this style of idealogical design, the best that seems to be 
standardized now is dual stack with rfc1918 and nat on the ipv4 side.

We now have a plethora of obsoleted, standardized, non standardized and 
not yet standardized interoperability schemes, which is kind of 
irritating this late in the game.

NAT arrived late to IPv4 and it appears to be arriving late to IPv6 as well.


Joe