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

Lee Howard spiffnolee at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 8 20:46:23 EST 2011

Jason tried to refocus the thread.
Forget the past fifteen years.  It is past.

John, Tony, you are saying, "There is no way to avoid extensive deployment of 
large-scale NAT44 in ISP networks"?

I have a hard time accepting that, since nobody wants it.  It runs contrary to 
everyone's interest.  It is a temporary solution at best, so companies have to 
deal with both LSN and IPv6, instead of just IPv6.  Is everyone really resigned 
to this?


----- Original Message ----
> From: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> To: Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 6:06:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] is NAT an inevitabile part of IPv4 / IPv6 transition
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > If the IANA pool had  run dry in 2009, the media attention we are seeing 
> > past week would  have already occurred, and CIOs would have already started
> > efforts that  are just now getting underway. The point is that dual-stack
> > requires  sufficient time to keep the old one working, so waiting until that
> > is no  longer an option as the starting point is guaranteed to create 
> >  modes. 
> > 
> > There is no one place to assign blame here, and blame  was never my intent.
> > If I had not put out my graph in 2005, attention on  the consumption rate
> > from IANA might have been ignored until it was too  late to have any
> > significant effect on the date, because Geoff's graphs  from that time said
> > 2019. If the RIR's collectively had not changed the  practice of when & how
> > much to acquire from IANA at one time, the  pool would have clearly burned
> > down at least 2 years ago. 
> > 
> > The point is simply that an opportunity for a graceful transition was  lost
> > because high level attention to the issue was deferred to the point  where 
> > was too late.
> Hah. High-level attention doesn't drive  deployment (except in a central-
> planning or heavily regulated environment),  a successful business case 
> drives deployment.  
> The opportunity  for graceful transition was lost when we both failed 
> to include transparent  interoperability and then further provided no 
> additional functionality to  drive deployment.  Reference RFC  1669.
> /John
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list