nanog mailing list archives
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
From: John Curran <jcurran () mail com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 05:36:56 -0400
At 10:43 AM +0200 10/2/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
When v4-only users get sick of going through a NAT-PT because it breaks a few things, that will be their motivation to get real IPv6 connectivity and turn the NAT-PT box off -- or switch it around so they can be a v6-only site internally.Yeah right. Youtube is going to switch to IPv6 because I have trouble viewing their stuff through NAT-PT.
For you? now? Not likely. About the time that a very large number of new Internet sites are being connected via IP6 because there is little choice, that's a different story. Providers would be likely be telling customers to send their complaints to YouTube, and that everyone's in the same situation until Youtube gets a real connection. The proxy&tunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely based on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks as NAT-PT, only without the attention to ALG's that NAT-PT will receive, and tunnelling is still going to require NAT in the deployment mode once IPv4 addresses are readily available. For now, HTTPS proxy or a IPv4 tunnel over IPv6 works fine, but most folks don't really care about IPv6 deployment right now. They're looking for a model which works 3 years from now, when the need to deploy IPv6 is clear and present. At that point, there's high value in having a standard NAT-PT / ALGs approach for providing limited IPv4 backwards compatibility. /John
Current thread:
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6), (continued)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Daniel Senie (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 04)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 04)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Marshall Eubanks (Oct 04)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Oct 01)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 02)