[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Lee Howard]

> > Large-scale NAT is only required after runout, and only for connections over 

> > IPv4.
> >  
> Agreed, assuming that enough IPv4 addresses can't be found via transfer "after 
> runout". I think the real answer is that it becomes needed after the *real* 
> runout, which is after holders of IPv4 who don't really need it (see all the 
> companies with legacy class A and class B space for their internal nets who NAT 
> all of them to the outside world anyway) sell it to people who can use it more 
> effectively.

Do you think there will be enough IPv4 addresses available via transfer to cover 
the annual growth of the Internet in the region?  
Will those addresses be cheaper or more expensive than large-scale NAT?
(my guesses:  not even  close, and much more expensive)

> > More IPv6 traffic means few NAT boxes.
> >  
> Agreed. Which reduces ISP cost... something most users don't care about. (And it 
> doesn't help that $19 multi-megabit service and $0 dialup are so common that the 
> users are trained to not cover ISP costs anyway)

Are you suggesting that pricing has no correlation to cost of goods?

> >>> That's the goal!  If you can't tell the difference, then that's a success!
> >> Actually that's the *problem*. If I can't tell the difference, then there's 
> >>no reason for me to demand IPv6 *or* for my provider to give it to me.
> > 
> > Maybe we have different goals.  My goal is to provide connectivity to my
> > customers.  IPv6 is a tool to do that, not an end in itself.
> >  
> Sure. But you'll still need to provide them with IPv4 (NAT or not), perhaps 
> forever.

Sorry, I didn't follow your logic.  You say:
Without an IPv6 killer app, you (as a consumer) don't care about IPv6.
Your ISP is going to give it to you anyway, to avoid LSN costs.
But there will still be some LSN cost, and therefore. . . IPv6 will never
happen?


> > Does anything break when it goes through two layers of NAT (i.e., home gateway 
> > NAT and CGN, a.k.a. NAT444)?  Several of the widely used NAT traversal systems 
> > assume a single NAT layer; not
> > sure how VoIP, online gaming, p2p will work with NAT444 (or, if
> > the other endpoint is also NAT444, you have NAT44444).    
> All NAT traversal systems currently fail in some NAT scenarios and must resort 
> to relaying the traffic. The percentage might change as more NAT is deployed, 
> but end-users don't usually care about this problem either. (When was the last 
> time you used Skype and actually checked to see whether your VoIP was going over 
> TCP vs. UDP, much less whether it was being relayed via some far-away university 
> network or not?)

It sounds like you're saying, "No problem, the applications will find ways to work
around LSN breakage."  But why is LSN workaround easier than IPv6?

I'm really trying to understand what you're arguing for or against.
It sounds like you're saying:
After ARIN can't fulfill IPv4 requests, ISPs will buy address transfers for an
extended period of time.
Only once the transfer market is drained will ISPs deploy Large-Scale NAT.
LSN will work so well that nobody will ever need or use IPv6.

Here's what I'm saying:
Paying for space in a transfer market will be expensive.
Large-Scale NAT will be expensive, but maybe not as expensive.  
   LSN may break some applications.
LSN use can be reduced (eliminated?) by using IPv6.
IPv6 is cheap.  
  Deployment of IPv6 requires project  planning and a bit of engineering;
  about the same amount as LSN.
  As more traffic uses IPv6, the network effect increases the value of
  using IPv6; it becomes ever cheaper and more useful.
Therefore, to avoid LSN, everyone should run IPv6 before IPv4
runout.

IOW:  Choosing among Good, Fast, Cheap:
Buying space:  fast
LSN:  cheaper
IPv6:  good, cheap

Lee