RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

["Church, Charles" <cchurc05 () harris com>]

 It's seems we're always confusing NAT with PAT (or NAT overload, or
whatever else you want to call it).  One to one NAT rarely breaks stuff.
NAT-PT would need to follow that model, otherwise, yes, things will
break.  It seems like an IPv6-only ISP would need to operate the NAT-PT
boxes, and dedicate a block of v4 addresses the size of the expected
concurrent online users to the NAT-PT box.  Keep in mind that a v6 ISP
with 1 million customers won't need a million v4 addresses, for obvious
reasons.  It's going to be considerably less than if each customer got a
v4 address.  NAT-PT does seem like a viable short term solution.  I'm
not sure though how to get current v4-only content providers to
dual-stack their stuff.  Increased domain fees maybe for v4-only
domains...


Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Iljitsch van Beijnum

And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP  
sessions, etc fail.