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

[Jack Bates]

On 1/27/2011 9:37 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
> TL;DR  Prioritize IPv6 over NAT444 workarounds.
>
>

As a service provider, I have no choices. I support IPv6, but I don't 
decide what applications my customers use or who they will talk to.

> What well-known prefix?  Do you mean 6to4?  It has huge
> problems:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052 Useful for NAT64  and using the well 
known prefix allows for literal IPv4 addressing within an IPv6 only 
network where DNS is not used by the application.

>
> The place where NAT444 is needed, and why I support
> this proposal, is in traditional client-server communication,
> as in web client/web server, or mail client/mail server.
> These applications generally work fine through NAT444,
> though with performance problems, legal and security
> issues, which have all been documented.  IPv6 is still much
> better.

I don't disagree, yet there are many applications that still are not 
supporting IPv6. I'd presume they will have no choice to stay in 
business, but that isn't my concern. My concern as a provider is to give 
access to other networks via IPv6 protocol and give access to other 
networks via IPv4 protocol.


Jack