North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
On 27/05/2007, at 11:06 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote: [..]Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required. As I alluded to, getting content to move to IPv6 isn't terribly easy, and I don't think that proxying/NATing is a great solution, either.
If you were an end user, calling up your ISP to get a new DSL line, and[..]
So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc. sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
While I think that some degradation of service is inevitable, I believe that it would be better to minimise the lessening of service, and shorten the transition period, wouldn't you?
It occurs to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in your model of this transition there becomes little benefit to moving customers to IPv6 at all if being stuffed behind a v4 NAT or HTTP proxies counts as "Internet connectivity". Of course, I'm probably taking your suggestions to an extreme there.
-- Nathan Ward