Re: NAT v6->v4 and v4->v6 (was Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 )

[Alain Durand <alain_durand () cable comcast com>]

On 9/29/07 8:24 PM, "Mark Smith"
<nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> wrote:

> Hi Alain,
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:45:58 -0400
> "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand () cable comcast com> wrote:
>
> > > It is also becoming apparent that:
> > >
> > > - the "core internet" (ie the web and any infrastructure server) will take
> > a long time to move to v6 and/or dual stack.
> > > - new v6-only edges will have to communicate with it. So we need v6->v4
> > translation in the core
> > >
>
> MPLS as well as the IETF softwires techniques (the MPLS
> model without using MPLS i.e. tunnel from ingress to egress via
> automated setup tunnels - gre, l2tp, or native IPv4 or IPv6) can or
> will shortly be able to be used to tunnel IPv6 over IPv4 or vice versa.
> softwires in effect treats the non-native core infrastructure as an
> NBMA layer 2.
>
> -----> Mark,
>
> I¹m afraid my use of the word ³core internet² has confused you and others.
> I was not talking about core backbone, but about all the infrastructure that
> user
> depend on, eg web servers, mail servers, streaming servers, p2p,....
>
> Yes MPLS or Softwires will help you cross those core backbones, but won¹t do
> much to
> help content providers to upgrade to v6... The problems are very different
> there.
> I know we are network engineers and as such tend to see every problems as
> network layer.
> However, this is not a layer 3 issue but a layer 7 & 8:
> getting the applications ported to v6 and paying for the upgrade.
>
>
>     - Alain.