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

Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Mon Mar 28 13:03:22 UTC 2022

james.cutler at consultant.com wrote:

> Overlap here refers to network address space address space, a
> fundamental part of this discussion.  Formerly separate networks
> containing separately managed rfc1918 spaces are prone to overlap
> require ingenious solutions for end-to-end traffic without
> renumbering.

If you are not satisfied with static punch holing and require
to use many connections with fully dynamically generated
port numbers by end systems, then, as I wrote:

: 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.

end to end NAT is your solution, because a locally provided
port number combined with a globally unique address is
a globally unique identifier at the transport layer.

> Mergers do not cause relocation of an office, which is not germane to
> this discussion.

As mergers often cause office mergers, which imply relocations, it
is your fault to have failed to clarity details.

>> Or, if you mean network merger remotely with VPN, small number of
>> hosts requiring E2E transparency may be renumbered, but it is not
>> so painful.
> Nobody mentioned VPN or limiting the number of hosts requiring E2E.

It is also your fault not to have considered VPN at all, even
though VPN could reduce renumbering efforts a lot.

 > "not so painful" is not  meaningful metric in this discussion.

Then, IPv6 is just painful. PERIOD.

							Masataka Ohta

More information about the NANOG mailing list