Re: draft for Translator discussion

["Erik Kline" <ekline@ekline.com>]

On 12/5/07, Hiroshi MIYATA <miyata@tahi.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Now we have big wave of translator discussion.
> As RFC4966 deprecated NAT-PT, it is good thing to discuss on
> alternatives.
>
> On the other hand, I have some concerns.
>
> a) Time frame.
>         2010 is very close.
>         Short term view is desired by the market as well as long term view.
>
> b) Target devices.
>         It is good thing to design translation technologies to resolve
>         all issues listed in RFC4966.
>         Some translator proposals require modification to IPv6 end-devices.
>         But we have to be aware that we already have many IPv6 devices
> deployed.
>
>         So, we should take care of following kind of devices.
>         - IPv4 devices
>         - Existing IPv6 devices
>                 These does not have special code to work with translator.
>         - Future IPv6 devices
>                 These has special code to work with translator.
>
> To prepare the coming IPv6 deployment, we need to clarify what is
> required for
> which kind of device by when.
>
> To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the
> first step)
> When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is also
> required not to
> produce the missing part, I think.
>
> http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans-approach-00.txt
> (I submitted it to IETF)
>
> Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ....miyata
>
>

I'm sure I'll be derided for eternity and my eat my words, but at the
moment it looks like the old NAT-PT (2766, iirc) works just fine for
my deployment/transition needs (for IPv6-only corporate networks).
None of the objections in 4966 actually apply in my situation.  I may
be the only one, but I intend to keep using the deprecated method
until I have to change.  Perhaps my company is degenerately simple,
but I'm fairly sure I can reap IPv4 networks (once I've achieved wide
dual-stack deployment and healthy IPv6 transit, etc.).  Of course
there are Operating System *platform* issues (like why do I have run
DHCPv4 for certain OSes if I'm trying to run an IPv6-only network?).

-Erik