[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> 2) Given that eyeball networks for support reasons will likely push 
> their cheapest plans into NAT444 quickly (so as to support a uniform 
> topology), what do you believe they will do with all this extra space 
> gained? Others in the thread have mentioned v4 value projected to be $40 
> per? Many eyeball networks also sideline these days with content 
> services as well. Will they utilize this massive block of free IPv4 they 
> recover to push out the content only providers?

For support, cost, and many other reasons, I think that eyeball networks
will put as few customers as they possibly can on NAT444, but, as their
need for addresses for higher value services grows, you can be almost
certain that they will move low-end customers to NAT444 to make those
addresses available for those higher value services.

I don't think you'll see them using NAT444 to free up vast quantities
of addresses to just monetize the addresses, but, even if that happens,
at least it means the addresses are going someplace they can be used.

> 3) While NAT444 is painful and there is hope that many things will 
> utilize v6, what percentage of services do you see remaining v4, where 
> NAT444 ceases to be painful? For example, http works rather well with 
> NAT444, so the pain threshold is much higher than say... skype/p2p. I 
> expect skype and other p2p programs (many already do) to support ipv6 
> quickly to protect their business model from dealing with NAT444, while 
> many services which don't have breakage from NAT have no driving force 
> to push them quicker to IPv6. The same goes for the eyeball customers. 
> They are likely to quit using home routers if it means gaining IPv6 
> connectivity to make their xbox/skype/wow patch work (or upgrade to an 
> IPv6 capable device). This will v6 enable them, and then they'll just 
> utilize v4 for the services which haven't migrated as quickly as NAT444 
> doesn't break them (or the break, such as geolocation, ip specific 
> rules, etc are acceptable by both parties).
> 
The places where NAT444 works OK are also the places where it is
actually easiest for the server side to convert to IPv6. NAT444 will
still provide a degraded user experience for those services, so, I
don't think that it will serve as a detractor from IPv6 migration for those
services. As has been mentioned, NAT444 still degrades geolocation,
creates security and audit challenges, reduces the ability to do reputation
based access control, etc.

Owen