Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:37:54 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> > Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > Nevertheless it would be great if loadbalancers sported IPv6
> > as it would mean that they also could handle huge sites like
> > CNN and Google which would be one way to allow them to upgrade
> > to IPv6.
> 
> Yep. As I have said before, as long as CNN, Google, eBay, eTrade, Yahoo
> and consorts are not IPv6 enabled (which also means multihomed for these
> guys) IPv6 does not exist for the general public.

Not quite: I disagree with your last statement.

Nothing stipulates that all, or even a commonly used part of, Internet
applications must use IPv6 before "IPv6 exists for the general public".

For example, a single popular p2p app could do it just fine.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:50:25 -0800

> Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Or perhaps they implement a poor-man's multi-homing
> solution to provide higher availability (though not
> connection survival).

This indeed is a very common situation; T1 with DSL backup or SDSL with
cable backup, NAT+RFC1918, just change the default route in the router
and change the DNS (with 15 min TTL) to point to the new IP. Being
crippled one hour instead of dead for days (I just had a TransEdge
customer that was down for 6+ days) is a good proposition for lots of
businesses and the $80/mo for backup DSL are a no brainer.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:39:31 -0800

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Yep. As I have said before, as long as CNN, Google, eBay,
>> eTrade, Yahoo and consorts are not IPv6 enabled (which
>> also means multihomed for these guys) IPv6 does not exist
>> for the general public.

> Nothing stipulates that all, or even a commonly used part
> of, Internet applications must use IPv6 before "IPv6 exists
> for the general public".

It would have to be the killer app that IPv6 so desperately needs. Short
of the new Napster with a guarantee that the RIAA would not try to kill
it immediately, I have not heard of such thing.

Michel.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 05:33:55 +0200

On måndag, mar 31, 2003, at 20:11 Europe/Stockholm, Michel Py wrote:

>
> In other words: it is possible indeed to look at solving the problem of
> PI scalability as a self-contained issue, but why? This is so deeply
> related to multihoming that the best way is to make sure that
> by-products of multihoming solutions do indeed provide a scalable
> PI-like solution for singlehomers.
>

Actually, what you are saying, and that I would agree with - is that 
the lack of a PI solution, that most likely would also have some effect 
on a multihoming solution, would also provide a solution to the SL 
problem.

So now we all we need to do is come up with a way to a) co-ordinate 
this, b) Find a solution :-)

- kurtis -