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

[Lee Howard]

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?

Lee


----- 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 
this
> > 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 
failure
> >  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 
it
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097