[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 31, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Xing Li wrote:

> 
>>> I think that's the real disconnect. This list is primarily concerned with address resource policy. From the perspective of address policy, IPv6 is pretty much a no brainer as it DOES solve the resource shortage issue admirably. From almost every other perspective, IPv6 stinks on ice and for those of us who would have to deal the problems it presents, it's a no brainer to try to extend the useful life on IPv4 as much as possible.
>>> 
>> Speaking as an end-user who is fortunate enough to have enough address space in both address families, I'd much rather have IPv6 than have to suffer through NAT, let alone the various forms of NAT++ that are coming (IVI, DS-Lite, 6RD, NAT64, NAT444, NAT4444, NAT44444444444..., etc.).
> 
> IVI and NAT64 are different from other kind of transition tools, since they can make IPv6-only hosts communicate with the IPv4 Internet.  Our experience indicates that IPv6-only hosts naturally achieve the IPv4/IPv6 transition.
> 

I wasn't trying to dis any of the transition protocols and I certainly agree that IVI, NAT64, and DS-Lite offer better promise for a better long-term outcome than the others. My point was that other than native dual-stack leading to native IPv6, every thing else is going to suck for varying values of suck.

Owen