Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

[Zed Usser <zzuser () yahoo com>]

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:

> > Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
> NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
> to have to deal with these issues in any case?
> >
> No, we need to move forward with IPv6 on all levels in
> order to reduce the need for these solutions.
  Reduce, yes. Remove, no. Without a global cutoff date for the IPv6 transition, it's not like IPv4 is going to 
disappear overnight. Furthermore, without any IPv4/IPv6 translation, the first IPv6 only networks are going to be 
awfully lonely. 

> Joining the IPv4/IPv6 domains doesn't work out all that
> well and a dependency on doing so is
> broken in a number of ways, many of which are documented in
> the draft.
  We agree that IPv4/IPv6 domain interoperability is broken, but it's not like we can ignore the issue. So, unless I'm 
very much mistaken, the NAT/PAT issues are going to have to be dealt with. Or do you propose an alternative solution?

Please note that this is not an anti-IPv6 stance. To me it looks like the problems plaguing NAT444 need to be solved 
just to make IPv4 and IPv6 co-exist. Perhaps not the very same problems, but similar NAT/PAT problems in any case. 
Please do tell me I'm wrong. Bonus points for explaining why I am wrong or how the IPv4/IPv6 thing is to be solved 
without NAT/PAT.

- Zed