North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
  • Date: Sun May 27 07:24:54 2007

NAT-PT is not the only solution for this. In addition to that, even if
deprecated, load balancers (there are quite a few), still support it. In
general, this is only needed if you can't update your Apache, IIS or
whatever web server to dual-stack, which normally should not be a problem at
all !

A simple solution are the IPv4-IPv6 proxies, several choices, just pick your
preferred one.

If the "free" CPEs provided to the customers today aren't IPv6 enabled,
that's is *only* a lack of adequate planning from the ISPs providing those
boxes. There are a few low cost boxes in the market, which offer IPv6
(dual-stack). Yes, less than with IPv4, but the only reason for that is
because we don't ask for that support to our favorite vendors when placing
the orders, something that we have should done since at least 2 years ago.

Moreover, there are open source solutions for MANY of those boxes, so not
having support from the original vendor doesn't preclude to have other
choices.

Last, but not least, even if the CPE is not IPv6-enabled, there is not any
issue, because the hosts can use built-in transition mechanisms, even
automatic ones, such as 6to4 and Teredo, to reach the IPv6 enabled contents
when they are available.

And even much more important. I don't believe in a short term, in IPv6-only
in the local area networks if we want a trouble-free transition. It is much
easier to keep dual-stack, even by means of private IPv4+NAT and global IPv6
addresses. This way, all the existing contents, applications and services,
which already work with NAT today, still will keep working. Only the time
will provide most of those services enabled with IPv6 and possibly new
applications taking advantage of the end-to-end capability when developers
realize that developing for IPv6-only saves a lot of cost and development
time that trying to sort out the NAT in each possible scenario.

Regards,
Jordi


PS: You can find lot of boxes, applications and services which are
IPv6-enabled at http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org. By the way, I just realized
that some of the IPv6-enabled load-balancers are miss-classified, so
tomorrow will correct that. And of course, if you know about other boxes,
applications or services that support IPv6 and are not there, please let me
know.



> De: Nathan Ward <nanog@xxxxxxxxx>
> Responder a: <owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx>
> Fecha: Sun, 27 May 2007 22:48:30 +1200
> Para: <nanog@xxxxxxxxx>
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
> 
> 
> 
> On 27/05/2007, at 9:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow
>> <christopher.morrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> 
>>>> on things, could cost some money.  I'd love to see google or Y!
>>> with
>>>> an AAAA record.  Or even Microsoft ;)
>>> 
>>> i agree 100%, which is why I posted something similar almost 2
>>> years ago
>>> now :(  It'd be very good to get some actual content on v6 that
>>> the masses
>>> want to view/use.
>>> 
>> 
>> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
> 
> Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
> one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
> 
> If you were an end user, calling up your ISP to get a new DSL line,
> and were told you couldn't have an IPv4 address, only IPv6, and
> "Sorry sir, Google (etc.) won't work until they upgrade." would you:
> a) Stick it out with that provider, even though there is no content
> for you to access.
> b) Hang up.
> If you answered (a) to the above, run through that again, from say,
> your Mother's perspective.
> 
> Now that NAT-PT is deprecated (ie. can't be used as an excuse to not
> move), we need to move the large (and small) content providers to
> dual-stack, before we move any customers to v6-only. Content
> providers have all the IPv4 addresses they need already, they're not
> going to be asking for more any time soon. If someone has some bright
> ideas on how to transition without loss of service to *someone*, I'm
> all ears.
> (IPv4 NAT is not a bright idea.)
> 
> In addition, when 2010 [1] rolls around, are the free CPE that your
> customers were given in the last 7 days upgradable to support IPv6?
> 
> 
> This is, of course, assuming we don't hold off until we've got a
> different IPv6 architecture as a result of the RAWS stuff. [2] While
> we're here, can someone point me in the direction of any ongoing
> discussion/work in this area? I attended the APRICOT workshop, but
> where to go to keep up with things/get involved isn't obvious.
> 
> --
> Nathan Ward
> 
> [1] http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-raws-report-02.txt




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.