"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
> Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>Having said that, I ask you: What do you foresee as a realistic IPv6
> > >>transition plan? Dual stacks? I don't see it happening, to tell you
> > >>the truth. (Maybe this 6-in-4 stuff will actually help here.)
> >
> > well, how about we just start to turn it on in some routers? - it works
> > in most host OSs now, dual stack, just fine.
> >
> > the value of the net is the square of the number of people connected -
> > NAT is a square root function.
>
> NAT has actually created a simple transition plan for us.
>
> I'd say at this point that 95% of the corporate networks in the
> U.S. use private addressing and a NAT or proxy box at the
> border. Switching from this to using v6 internally with a v6 to v4
> NAT/proxy at the border for communicating with v4 is trivial -- since
> they don't have globally routable addresses now, they won't be hurt by
> the switch.
>
> As more and more people switch to this configuration, they'll start
> finding themselves talking to more and more things over the net
> natively, and fewer and fewer through the translator. Suddenly,
> they'll discover they *do* have globally routable addresses again,
> just like we did in the old days before net 10 was turned into the
> universal addressing ghetto.
By the way, the 6to4 mechanism was conceived as the natural first mechanism
for such NATted sites to use.
In answer to Yakov, the idea is that IPv6 site renumbering will be so much
easier than for IPv4 that renumbering will be *less* painful than NATting.
Theoretically this is taken care of in IPv6 today, but we need to see
some practical experience of renumbering to find out if it's true.
Brian
