NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Wed Apr 22 15:24:45 UTC 2009

On 22 apr 2009, at 0:19, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group  
>> trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public  
>> opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are  
>> designed is such a way to guarantee maximum adoption of v6 and thus  
>> reducing the potential for depletion of v4 space.

> The IETF specifically does not accept organizational input and  
> requires instead that individuals participate.

So how is the RIR model where you become a member and then participate  
better? If ARIN or the other RIRs have compelling arguments the only  
reason those arguments are compelling is because of their merit, not  
because they're from a RIR.

> it means that even if ARIN could develop a public
> opinion (which would have to come from the ARIN community by some  
> process which
> we don't really have as yet), this opinion wouldn't mean much in the  
> IETF's eyes.

Well, if you, ARIN, or anyone else has input that should be considered  
when writing with a better specification for an IPv6-IPv4 translator,  
please let us know.

For the past year or so the IETF behave working group has been  
considering the issue, and looked at a whole bunch of scenarios: from  
a small IPv6 network to the public IPv4 internet, to private IPv4  
addresses, from a small IPv4 network to the public IPv6 internet, to  
(not entirely) private IPv6 addresses. The IPv6->IPv4 case seems  
doable with a bunch of caveats (it's still NAT) and we (for some value  
of "we") want to get it out fast, but the other way around looks much  
more difficult and will at the very least take longer.

The softwire(s?) working group is looking at tunneling IPv4 over IPv6  
towards a big "carrier grade NAT" so IPv4 hosts/applications can still  
work across an IPv6 access network with only one layer of NAT.

In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it  
should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your  
broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the  
IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.

So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6  
deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4  
addresses.