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

[Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:

> On 23 nov 2007, at 12:27, David Miles wrote:
> 
> > again, why introduce translation between IPv6 hosts and legacy  
> > servers when every OS I can think of that supports IPv6 also  
> > supports IPv4 through dual stack.
> 
> Because that way operators need to keep running two versions of IP  
> side by side. since everything is reachable over IPv4 anyway, this  
> provides essentially zero benefit over the situation where you just  
> have IPv4. This means people won't deploy IPv6 but will stick with  
> IPv4 even when the layers of NAT are piled on.

I think I'm getting convinced that your "modified NAT-PT" approach
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt
is essentially the way to go.

My only concern is that there is not much time left until IPv4 address
depletion will start causing real problems, and we don't even have a
"finished" RFC for "modified NAT-PT" yet.

How do you see the timeline with regard to getting more feedback on
this I-D, publishing the RFC, implementation and deployment?

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org