[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ocean: do not boil
> Why not? How do we think that our attempts at v6->v4
> translation will be better than deploying an IPv4 NAT?
=> I don't understand how you could convice someone
that IPv6 is needed because of the existing problems with
IPv4 (lack of addresses, NATs ....etc) but tell them that
they need NATs anyway to deploy v6.
And, you think this will read differently if the "NAT" has
a "-PT" on the end?
There is something
broken in that logic. The difference between v4 NATs and
NAT-PT is that, in time we will hopefully phase out NAT-PT
or its use will be reduced significantly. You can't
say the same thing about v4 NATs.
They phase out at the same time -- as soon as it isn't
necessary for any host within the site to communicate with
an IPv4-only host, the NAT(-PT) functionality won't be
used any more and can be removed.
There are actually some advantages to the IPv4 NAT approach:
- IPv4 communication works inside and outside the
- Leverages existing infrastructure/expertise in
- Doesn't break anything that worked before you
The main disadvantages would seem to be:
- Need to run dual-stack on all nodes that need to
access IPv4-only nodes or services.
- Need to assign IPv4 addresses (probably requires a
I can see why those might be bigger issues for an all-new
installation, but do you really think they are blocking issues?
Would you agree that a current site that is using IPv4 behind a
NAT should deploy IPv6 side-by-side with the current IPv4 NAT