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

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Wed Oct 3 10:02:31 UTC 2007


On 3-okt-2007, at 9:42, Randy Bush wrote:

> but the reality is ipv4 works and ipv6 doesn't.

It has very little deployment at this point in time, that's something  
different.

> and unless the ivory tower purists get off their doomed thrones,  
> ipv6 will die stillborn.

And unless the purists, whatever their living arrangements, get to  
keep out at least some of the bad stuff that's in IPv4, the entire  
effort to move to IPv6 will be a waste of time because we'll all be  
in the exact same mess only with harder to remember addresses.

> there are more ipv4 nats within a 1km radius of here than there are
> v6-enabled networks on the planet.  and i am at the nexus of ipv6
> deployment in the world, networking central in tokyo.

So? Still 1157 million IPv4 addresses to burn, can't realistically  
expect people to upgrade to IPv6 unless they have to.

> the reality is you have a choice.  nat-pt or ipv4 with massive natting
> forever.  it's not a choice i like, but it's life.  get over it.

I'd rather have IPv4 with massive NAT and IPv6 without NAT than both  
IPv4 and IPv6 with moderate levels of NAT.

The tricky part is that we're not going to agree on that as a  
community, so the status quo will persist until someone cares enough  
to do something drastic that moves the entire industry in one  
direction or another.



More information about the NANOG mailing list