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

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 8, 2011, at 6:04 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> 
>> 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"?
> 
> Lee - I believe that transition without NAT44 is still possible; I was simply
> refuting a theory that raising a louder alarm a few years back would have made
> a material difference in the present state.  As Ted noted, IPv6 lacks customer
> demand so attempts to "push" it prior to actual depletion (and service provider
> demand) doesn't yield significant results.
> 
Transition without NAT44 is not possible, NAT44 is already widely deployed.
Transition without NAT444 is unlikely due to the very large number of completely
unprepared consumer electronics devices and vendors out there.

> As usual, we'll try to overcome the inertia by activities which create a sense
> of demand (USG IPv6 mandate, World IPv6 Day, etc.) and hope that when combined
> with enlightened early adopters, specific market real demand (e.g. smartphones),
> and now actual depletion, we'll actually have enough takeup to build momentum.
> 
I hope.

> To the extent that there's a policy proposal that would help this along, this 
> is the right mailing list to discuss.
> 
I wish. I think we've done all that can be done in terms of policy in this regard,
but, I welcome any ideas others may have.


Owen