North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

  • From: John Curran
  • Date: Tue Oct 02 05:57:50 2007

At 10:43 AM +0200 10/2/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

>>When v4-only users get sick of going through a NAT-PT because it breaks a few things, that will be their motivation to get real IPv6 connectivity and turn the NAT-PT box off -- or switch it around so they can be a v6-only site internally.
>Yeah right. Youtube is going to switch to IPv6 because I have trouble viewing their stuff through NAT-PT.

For you? now?  Not likely.  About the time that a very large number
of new Internet sites are being connected via IP6 because there is
little choice, that's a different story. 

Providers would be likely be telling customers to send their complaints
to YouTube, and that everyone's in the same situation until Youtube
gets a real connection.

The proxy&tunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely based
on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks as NAT-PT,
only without the attention to ALG's that NAT-PT will receive, and
tunnelling is still going to require NAT in the deployment mode once
IPv4 addresses are readily available.  For now, HTTPS proxy or a IPv4
tunnel over IPv6 works fine, but most folks don't really care about
IPv6 deployment right now.  They're looking for a model which works
3 years from now, when the need to deploy IPv6 is clear and present.
At that point, there's high value in having a standard NAT-PT / ALGs
approach for providing limited IPv4 backwards compatibility.