[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Follow-up work on NAT-PT

Thus spake "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>

On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 08:12:27AM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:

Implementing "dual stack" is not much harder than implementing "IPv6
only", so this is pretty much a no-brainer.

I want to challenge that.  How are you going to implement "dual stack"
if no more IPv4 addresses are available?

Which is going to be a fairly typical scenario for new networks, some
years into the future.

It's trivial to _implement_ dual-stack, but it's going to get difficult to 
_deploy_ dual-stack in a few years.

The response I'm expecting -- so I'll save folks the effort -- is that 
people will dual-stack with RFC1918 and NAT on the v4 side.  My question is 
(still) why that is any better than v6-only hosts with NAT-PT.  All modern 
apps are version-agnostic, so they have to deal with the ugliness of NAT 
with either solution, and having v6-only hosts cuts the work required by 
leaf host/network admins in half.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the

K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking