Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Sun Mar 27 04:42:34 UTC 2022

james.cutler at consultant.com wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2022, at 8:30 PM, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>> It still looks like NAT to me.
>> Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT
>> as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition
>> plan from IPv4 to IPv6.
>>> NAT is a disgusting hack and destroys the universal peer to peer
>>> nature of the internet in favor of a consumer/provider model.
>> As I repeatedly pointed out, end to end NAT is clean preserving
>> the universal peer to peer nature of the Internet.
>> 	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00
>> The basic idea is to let NAT boxes perform address translations
>> only without adjusting check sums or translating ports and
>> to let end systems perform reverse address translations,
>> which restores correct check sums, and port number
>> restrictions.
>> 						Masataka Ohta
> I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is required and which partially or fully overlap. Ignoring short-sighted financial management views, the best long term solution is globally unique IPv6 addressing wherever possible. Local islands of IPv4 gatewayed or NATted with local management continue to be possible.
In other words, once its merger time, IPv6 fixes nothing.

Can one really incentivize an enterprise to standardize on IPv6 on the 
basis of it will make a future merger much more economical? And this is 
well before any such prospect usually exists.

Is there any activity that enterprises choose to engage in on that basis?


More information about the NANOG mailing list