Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> If NAT works so well in the first place, why do we then need IPv6 at all?

i expect that question to come up quite a lot, as part of the business case
analysis.  "i've got 20,000 ip-speaking devices, but only 7 of them have
universally unique addresses, the rest are in private address space because
i was not able to get a class B.  if i move to ipv6 i can get my own /48 but
it will be in my isp's address space, which will make multihoming hard and
make switching providers even harder.  do i really want to have to renumber,
even with ipv6's extensive automated assistance for this, whenever there's
a rate war at my local transit exchange?"  and then will come the question
you gave above.

(i'm done grousing about A6 -- that's a dead issue as far as i'm concerned.
but the problems A6 was supposed to solve or avoid didn't die with it, and
we're going to have to grapple with the business case analysis every step
of the way to full ipv6 deployment.  unfortunately, the early adopters are
all organizations of the kind who get their address space from RIR's rather
than from their upstream ISP's, so this issue hasn't yet seemed real here.)