RE: ocean: do not boil

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

  > Hah, I knew someone would spot that.
  > 
  > Because you don't use 'em for a large v4 cloud.  You use 'em for a
  > little v4 edge site behind some kind of combination NAPT/NAT-PT box
  > and use some kind of v6-over-v4 tunneling over the rest of the v4
  > cloud.  So you've got a lot of little translators converting to IPv6
  > as early as possible, which scales much better than big honking
  > translators at the border between the cloud and the rest of 
  > the world.

=> ok, I thought you eliminated NA(P)T-PTs but I obviously
misunderstood that. There were several discussions in 
our DT meeting in Sunnyvale to make NAT-PT scale in a 
similar manner by having "translator clusters". 
Essentially, it all boils down to removing the DNS ALG
from NAT-PT and different ways were proposed. 

I think we can make it scale with very little effort actually.

  > The same approach would "work" for large v6 clouds, but the result
  > would not be useful, because it'd require so many IPv4 
  > addresses that
  > there'd be no point to the exercise.

=> Wouldn't it require the same number of addresses?
Eventually you are translating from a private (be it
v6 or 1918 addresses) space to public one. The public
space would need public v4 addresses. So I'm not sure
why you would run out of addresses in one case but not
the other.

Hesham