RE: ocean: do not boil

["Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>]

  > >=> I completely agree with Bob. I don't understand how we
  > >can rule out the v6only => v4 only communication.
  > >What do we say to operators who can't get enough
  > >v4 addreses? Deploy a v4 NAT as well as IPv6?
  > 
  > Why not?  How do we think that our attempts at v6->v4
  > translation will be better than deploying an IPv4 NAT?

=> I don't understand how you could convice someone
that IPv6 is needed because of the existing problems with
IPv4 (lack of addresses, NATs ....etc) but tell them that
they need NATs anyway to deploy v6. There is something 
broken in that logic. The difference between v4 NATs and
NAT-PT is that, in time we will hopefully phase out NAT-PT
or its use will be reduced significantly. You can't 
say the same thing about v4 NATs. 

I think a fresh operator would see an advantage in deploying
v6 immediately and run a single network. I'm not sure about
the strength of the logic demanding the deployment of v6
and v4 NATs at the same time.

  > 
  > >I can understand that communication between a v4only
  > >host initiating a connection with a v6 only host
  > >is too difficult and probably should not be a priority.
  > 
  > So, perhaps we are all in agreement on that.

=> I think so.

Hesham