Hi, I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated, with people talking about carrier grade NATS I think combining these with NAT-PT could help with the transition after we run out of IPv4 space.
ISP gets a chunk of IPv6 address space, sets up customers with it, gets their big lovely carrier grade NAT device that NAT's from customers IPv6 address to whatever IPv4 service they need. I'm probably missing something but does this not seem like a good option? Why not use IPv6 instead of private IPv4, end user gets end-to-end connectivity with anything that is IPv6 enabled while still being able to access the legacy IPv4 network. Also see it of long term benefit to ISP's as will first have to get big expensive equipment for CGN, but over time they won't have the big expensive of continuously upgrading these units as IPv4 dwindles Just my 2c Steve -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2009 10:03 AM To: Tony Hain Cc: 'Carl Rosevear'; [email protected] Subject: Re: IPv6 Confusion At Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:28:11 -0800, Tony Hain wrote: > > While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are > implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at this > point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host > implementations will conform to what the network operator would prefer s/network operator would prefer/specifications/ > One last comment (because I hear "just more bits" a lot in the *nog > community)... Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol. If you approach > it as "IPv4 with more bits", you will trip over the differences and be > pissed off. If you approach it as a "different protocol with a name that > starts with IP" and runs alongside IPv4 (like we used to do with decnet, > sna, appletalk...), you will be comforted in all the similarities. You will > also hear lots of noise about 'lack of compatibility', which is just another > instance of refusing to recognize that this is really a different protocol. > At the end of the day, it is a packet based protocol that moves payloads > around. unfortunately, this view leads to two internets, and one not reachable from the other. this is not very realistic from the business and user point of view. randy
