On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:21:53PM +0000, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:39:19PM +0000, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
> > dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
> >
> > if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again.
> > either you are going to need:
> >
> > lots more IPv4 space
> >
> > stealing ports to mux addresses
> >
> > run straight-up native IPv6 - no IPv4 (unless you need to talk to
> > a v4-only host - then use IVI or similar..)
> >
> > imho - the path through the woods is an IVI-like solution.
>
> There are several IPv4/IPv6 co-existence technologies under
> development that attempt to resolve the asymmetry Bill notes here,
> where IPv4 addresses are already scarce and IPv6 addresses may
> reasonably be treated as less so. They include IVI, NAT64/DNS64, and
> dual-stack lite.
>
> See for example the lightning talk last Wednesday in Austin on AFTR,
> ISC's free, open source implementation of dual-stack lite, or the
> panel discussion at APRICOT earlier this week.
>
> It's only been in the last couple of years that the IETF and the
> vendors have been taking seriously the problem of moving IPv4-IPv6
> co-existence mechanisms into the network, away from host-based
> dual-stack and into use cases where legacy infrastructure has to
> co-exist with the need for growth. But now that they have, there's an
> embarrassment of what we can hope turn out to be riches in this
> area....or at least a pony amongst the, err, bulk of material.
>
there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
translation technology, esp one that is integrated into
the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
or that the enduser will have a devil of a time routing around
it when it no longer works for her - but the ISP sees her as a
statistically anomaly.
I would argue that the right/correct place for such translation
technology is very close to the edge - in much the same way as
NAT technology is roughl an "edge" technology. (ok - it used to be but
w/
CGN .. its clearly moved.
we -need- the technologies - but only for a while. otherwise they
become a drug that we are dependent on. and we will be stuck on the
dual-stack plateau for a much longer time that we should.
imho of coure ... YM (and business models) MV
--bill
>
> Suzanne
