>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dwight Jamieson wrote:
>> Looking a few years down the road, assuming that bulk of the bleeding
>> is over, will operating that network be simpler, easier, cheaper than
>> operating a network with private addressing today?
>Once that point is reached, I'd suspect so. There's also an
>alternative or a variation: keep using the existing v4 infrastructure
>(for simpler applications), but introduce the new apps to (only) v6.
Yes, that would be the transition path. New apps would be v6 only.
Existing apps would be transitioned to v6 only, as soon as that makes sense
The core would be transitioned to IPv6 soon as it makes sense
Hosts would remain dual stack as long as v4 only services need to be reached
- tunnel hosts v4/v6 to a dual stack router/relay
- of course this requires NAT, but hopefully limited ALG support
>> How painful is introducing new applications behind NAT/ALGs? What
>> percentage of an IT department's budget spent on issues relating to
>> private addressing?
>That's a good question. I'd guess that getting non-trivial apps
>(e.g., VoIP, video conferencing, etc.) to work across NATs is
>non-trivial exercise. I'd guess that most cost is borne by those
>folks who write and need to support those applications. That includes
>the enterprise if the app is important enough to the enterprise.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings