RE: ocean: do not boil

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

>   > 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.
And, you think this will read differently if the "NAT" has
a "-PT" on the end?

> 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.
They phase out at the same time -- as soon as it isn't
necessary for any host within the site to communicate with
an IPv4-only host, the NAT(-PT) functionality won't be
used any more and can be removed.

There are actually some advantages to the IPv4 NAT approach:

        - IPv4 communication works inside and outside the
                site.
        - Leverages existing infrastructure/expertise in
                IPv4 networking.
        - Doesn't break anything that worked before you
                installed IPv6.

The main disadvantages would seem to be:

        - Need to run dual-stack on all nodes that need to
                access IPv4-only nodes or services.
        - Need to assign IPv4 addresses (probably requires a
                DHCP server)

I can see why those might be bigger issues for an all-new
installation, but do you really think they are blocking issues?

Would you agree that a current site that is using IPv4 behind a
NAT should deploy IPv6 side-by-side with the current IPv4 NAT
infrastructure?

Margaret