+1 The press reaction is likely to be better as well. The only point to doing the IPv6 only approach is if you want to demonstrate that it is entirely impractical and drill it into folks heads that we need to be more realistic in our approach here. The double NAT approach is much closer to what the actual transition is going to look like. The only difference is that I think we might just be able to work out a viable means of punching holes so that video-conferencing works if we actually set our minds to it.
________________________________ From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 19/12/2007 3:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Pete Resnick'; 'IETF Chair'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'John C Klensin'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary >>>>> "Tony" == Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tony> the right experiment. It is not right because it does Tony> nothing positive, other than the threat -maybe- spurring Tony> some action. A more realistic experiment would be to run the Tony> entire week with a double-nat for IPv4 (and nats between the Tony> access points to simulate consumer-to-consumer Tony> configurations), where the most public one has absolutely no Tony> provision for punching holes (because realistically an ISP Tony> is not going to punch inbound holes for its customers, or Tony> allow them to). I strongly support this experiment and believe it would be a really good idea to run. I do think behave-compatible nats should be used, but besides that, I think the experiment you propose is far more valuable than the v6-only experiment. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
