Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
alain_durand at cable.comcast.com
Fri Jan 15 13:29:46 UTC 2010
> I have looked at DS-lite very carefully. First, DS-Lite fits better
> for cable operators since they have CPE and can have a DS-lite
> function in the CPE that they control, and that in turn allows them to
> provide IPv4, IPv6, and dual-stack to the end-host that they do not
> control. DS-Lite does not fit as well for a mobile phones since it
> would require a major change to the phone's OS. Second, DS-Lite
> requires tunneling as well as translation, so it is one more piece of
> overhead in addition to NAT64 solution. For me, i believe it is less
> complex to manage a single stack IPv6 host with NAT64 translation than
> a dual stack host, tunneling infrastructure, as well as NAT44 CGN,
> which is what DS-lite requires. They both achieve the same result,
> but I believe in the mobile space there is a quicker time to market as
> well as more progress toward the end-goal of IPv6-only using NAT64
> than DS-lite.
> ===> DS-lite can work both for fixed and wireless scenario, where you have a
> that is only configured by the access network with IPv6 but want to access
> IPv4 content FROM IPv4 applications.
> This is the main difference between DS-lite and NAT64. NAT64 requires all
> application on the user device to be IPv6 compatible.
> Now, that may or may not be an issue. If you are talking about a proprietary
> wireless device that run only proprietary apps,
> porting all those apps to IPv6 prior to launching the service may be ok...
> However, if the device can run external apps, like those coming
> from an app store, or running pre-existing apps (I¹m thinking about the
> gazillions apps existing on the iPhone), then a NAT64 solution
> will force a complete rewrite of every single one of those apps... DS-lite
> would enable all those apps to keep working. Big difference.
> - Alain.
More information about the NANOG