Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

["Larry J. Blunk" <ljb () merit edu>]

Randy Bush wrote:
> > And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
> > to work once some configuration issues were ironed out.   Unfortunately,
> > this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
> >     
>
> your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it.  but
> do you think it will scale well?
>   
     For the size of a NANOG meeting, it seemed to be
sufficient.  I don't think I'd recommend trying to put
thousands of users behind it though.

> i suspect that all the nat-pt implementations are old and not well
> maintained.  this needs to be fixed.
>
>   
  Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt.
I could see a case for very controlled environments with
uniform clients (with robust v6 support).   Outside of that,
native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's
lightning talk) and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more
likely deployment candidates.  That said, nat-pt is very useful
for exercising native v6 support in clients and their applications.

-Larry