<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>On 12/8/09 2:01 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <<a href="matthew@matthew.at">matthew@matthew.at</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> I agree that content providers NEED to be dual-stacked first,...<BR>
And where will they be getting the IPv4 for that side of "dual-stacked"<BR>
from after runout?<BR>
<BR>
===> This is where a technology like dual-stack lite comes to play. See<BR>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-02.txt">http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-02.txt</a><BR>
<BR>
And if that's via a mechanism that actually works well enough, then why<BR>
would we need IPv6?<BR>
<BR>
===> Because a packet that flows natively over IPv6 is a packet that does not have to go through the IPv4 NAT infrastructure.<BR>
In other words, the more v6 traffic, the less we spend on NATs.<BR>
<BR>
- Alain.</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>