RE: I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-v6ops-6man-nat64-pb-statement-00.txt

[Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> >    In addition, as IPv4 public address space is
> >    depleted, it will no longer possible to access to IPv4 public
> >    addresses, making dual stack nodes even less attractive.
>
> Well, if I was implementing a new service, I would work very hard to
> get a public IPv4 address for it, so I don't think this argument
> works for servers and services for many years to come. It clearly
> will apply to client systems much sooner. So I'd rather see the
> problem expressed as: New populations of clients (and p2p hosts)
> that have no public IPv4 address, but do have plentiful public
> IPv6 addresses, which need to contact legacy servers (and p2p hosts)
> that have a public IPv4 address (possibly NATted) but no IPv6
> capability.

What P2P hosts are we speaking of, exactly? As far as I know, there are very few PC-class hosts that cannot now run some form of IPv6, using a transition technology like Teredo or 6to4. P2P applications are thus very likely to use that.

I suggest that we limit the scope of the problem to enabling IPv6 only hosts to contact legacy IPv4 servers, assuming that these servers in fact have a global IPv4 address. Smaller problems are easier to solve...

-- Christian Huitema