[arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition

[Tony Hain]

FWIW: IANA would have run out 2 years ago if the RIRs had not changed their
behavior of maintaining 2 years of projected need as a local pool. In other
words, we could have focused global attention to the issue with time to do a
dual-stack deployment, but people wanted to put off the inevitable as long
as possible, so we are now stuck with the result.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Jack Bates
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 1:46 PM
> To: Jason Schiller
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6
> transition
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/8/2011 3:11 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> > If all of this can
> > happen in the time period between IANA depletion and when the first
> > organizations are forced to build green field IPv6-only networks,
> then
> > dependance on NAT can be mostly avoided as a protocol translation
> > mechanism.
> >
> 
> Actually, IANA would have already run out if not for there already
> being
> green field IPv6-only networks AND there already being huge LSN
> deployments (even using bogon space).
> 
> > The important point here is the people that
> > feel the pain of the poorly operating translation services are the
> people
> > who refuse to upgrade.  When the pain of poor performance outweighs
> the
> > pain of upgrading the problem will resolve itself.
> 
> Right now we are stuck with partial pains either way. Now that market
> pressure is starting to exert itself, we see the core networks finally
> converging and deploying proper peering/pathing of IPv6 (still work to
> be done). As they complete, the eyeballs can turn up IPv6 without the
> problem of isolation deadness, which in turn means the content
> providers
> can use AAAA. At the same time, many providers will either offer
> dualstack with LSN deployments or NAT64. In both cases, the end to end
> model is shot beyond recovery and pushes applications towards IPv6.
> 
> The good news is, core/provider based NAT should be short lived. It is
> too painful for anyone to want to keep it.
> 
> Jack
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.