On 22 apr 2009, at 0:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group
trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public
opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are
designed is such a way to guarantee maximum adoption of v6 and thus
reducing the potential for depletion of v4 space.
The IETF specifically does not accept organizational input and
requires instead that individuals participate.
So how is the RIR model where you become a member and then participate
better? If ARIN or the other RIRs have compelling arguments the only
reason those arguments are compelling is because of their merit, not
because they're from a RIR.
it means that even if ARIN could develop a public
opinion (which would have to come from the ARIN community by some
process which
we don't really have as yet), this opinion wouldn't mean much in the
IETF's eyes.
Well, if you, ARIN, or anyone else has input that should be considered
when writing with a better specification for an IPv6-IPv4 translator,
please let us know.
For the past year or so the IETF behave working group has been
considering the issue, and looked at a whole bunch of scenarios: from
a small IPv6 network to the public IPv4 internet, to private IPv4
addresses, from a small IPv4 network to the public IPv6 internet, to
(not entirely) private IPv6 addresses. The IPv6->IPv4 case seems
doable with a bunch of caveats (it's still NAT) and we (for some value
of "we") want to get it out fast, but the other way around looks much
more difficult and will at the very least take longer.
The softwire(s?) working group is looking at tunneling IPv4 over IPv6
towards a big "carrier grade NAT" so IPv4 hosts/applications can still
work across an IPv6 access network with only one layer of NAT.
In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the
IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.
So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6
deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4
addresses.
