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

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> > 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 have long been arguing that there is nothing I can do in IPv6 that I 
can't do in IPv4. It might be done in different ways, or in some ways 
easier, but it can still be done (in my opinion cleaner and easier in a 
lot of cases in IPv4). Still, I don't see another path ahead than IPv6 
at the moment, although I will be the first to point out the problems 
that IPv6 won't solve. I do think that we should go ahead, becuase if 
nothing else it will help us understand the real problems of migration 
and the problems with IPv4/IPv6 better.

This said, I think we have had enough of IPv6 "priest" and now need to 
get more operationally focused people in to the v6 discussions. Here 
Paul points out a interesting thing, so far we have seen the early 
adopters. I think they are generally keener to ignore potential 
problems for downstreams than then downstreams them selves - for 
obvious reasons. In away I think we are back to pre-CIDR - which have 
it's advantages and disadvantages. Keeping the number of routes down 
should be a priority concern in my opinon. Then again - I wan't to see 
the first first +100k employee organization renumber.


Best regards,

- kurtis -