Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

Tue Oct 2 02:18:43 UTC 2007

Thus spake <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu>
> "Historic" usually refers to "stuff we've managed to mostly stamp
> out production use".
>
> So it boils down to "Do you think that once that camel has gotten
> its nose into the tent, he'll ever actually leave?".

This particular camel will be here until we manage to get v4 turned off, 
regardless of what status the IETF dogmatists assign it.  Once that happens, 
though, there will be no need for NAT-PT anymore  :-)

> (Consider that if (for example) enough ISPs deploy that sort of
> migration tool, then Amazon has no incentive to move to IPv6, and
> then the ISP is stuck keeping it around because they don't dare
> turn off Amazon).

That depends.  If Amazon sees absolutely no ill effects from v6 users 
reaching it via v4, then they obviously have little technical incentive to 
migrate.  OTOH, if that is true, then all the whining about how "evil" 
NAT-PT is is obviously bunk.  We can't have it both ways, folks: either 
NAT-PT breaks things and people would move to native v6 to get away from it, 
or NAT-PT doesn't break things and there's no reason not to use it.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 