MAP-T in production

Mon Jul 27 19:05:22 UTC 2020

NAT444 CGN does NOT solve an IPv6 problem at all. It solves an IPv4 shortage problem at best and is not designed as a long-term solution. I cannot force customers to buy new equipment to make them IPv6 compliant. The best option is to support, fully and unabashedly, IPv6 and help with the transition from IPv4 using techniques to solve for the problems/corner-cases.

All transition technologies are band-aids. We are talking about ways to bridge a gap. Anyone looking at any of these techniques as an end design goal has missed the IPv6 point all together and is not serving their users/customers well. In the end, we will have everyone on IPv6 and this entire conversation is mute.

BTW… name a transition technology that is supported by all legacy equipment…. I’ll enjoy the silence. ;)

> On Jul 26, 2020, at 7:23 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 25/Jul/20 03:24, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
>> a great path.  fork lift all cpe and cgn in the core.  the vendors'
>> dream
> 
> All major vendors are shipping IPv6. Some even 464XLAT. And yet they
> will not put those forward as long term solutions.
> 
> As Randy points out, CG-NAT sells plenty in license fees. And you need
> more and more, every year. Not less.
> 
> So, go ahead and enrich the vendors, at the expense of your business.
> And we shall all wonder why they keep saying "But no one is asking for
> IPv6".
> 
> Mark.
> 