Subject: RE: FW: Why?

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:35:21 -0800

>> Joel M. Halpern wrote: 
>> Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have
>> already seen several major corporations publicly indicate
>> that they intend to use NAT with IPv6, even though they can
>> get enough public address space.

> Tim Chown wrote:
> I assume the reason is lack of PI space, or is it a mixture
> of the other commonly cited reasons?

The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even
though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed
these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced
me some years ago that IPv6 NAT was unavoidable :-)

Michel.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:09:07 +0000

> me some years ago that IPv6 NAT was unavoidable :-)

Hi Michel, nice to hear from you :)

Yes, I personally feel it is inevitable, and of course the IETF won't stop
people deploying it. 

The irony in European and US deployment seems to be that the networks that
have deployed IPv6 natively are the very ones that have ample IPv4
address space already (predominantly the academic/research networks) while
the networks that could benefit the most (SOHO) remain IPv4-only.

Noel's 'snake oil' analogy cuts close to the bone, but in the case of IPv6
- as we heard in the IAB plenary last night - ISPs have some motivation
to keep their patients ill ($$ for global addresses).

Nice discussion.

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:42:04 -0500 (EST)

> Yes, I personally feel it is inevitable, and of course the IETF won't stop

Well, the NAT's are not really necessary in a dual stack implementation,
i.e. once the v6 router is deployed at the perimeter of the v4 NAT
network, the NAT becomes unnecessary for end to end connectivity.  Its not
really that tough for a SOHO... free tunnels coupled with free stateless
autoconfig routing software such as radvd, and a NAT becomes a globally
addressed v6 network.  There is the latency involved with tunneling, of
course, but that can be (and in all practice has been) overcome with
regionally distributed tunnel brokers.

> the networks that could benefit the most (SOHO) remain IPv4-only.

The problem is very little v6 deployment from the carriers providing
circuits to the SOHO... no native support on the part of the carrier means
more work for the SOHO operator unless there are shiny little boxes with
blinkenlights that say "IPv6 Router" on them.

Scott

> to keep their patients ill ($$ for global addresses).

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/