Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>]

On 9/2/10 10:31 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Gert Doering wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:12:58AM +0800, Tina TSOU wrote:
>> [..]
>>> No one has the right to request these applications must support NAT64
>>> traversal,
>> [..]
>>> NAT64. Since these applications are existing applications, no one has
>>> right
>>> to requesting stop using these applications.
>> [..]
>>> 4) No one has the right to force all the UE to support IPV6,
>>> therefore from
>>> the technology evolution point of view, we don't have to consider
>>> IPV4 only
>> [..]
>>
>> I'm wondering which parallel universe this is going to happen.
>>
>> In my universe, IPv4 is going to run out, and if there is no more IPv4,
>> these applications will either get fixed, or die.  Very straightforward.
> 
> In the same universe where there will be IPv4 public addresses and NAT44
> still in 20 years, I suppose?  I guess it's in the eye of the beholder
> how difficult you expect it to be to be able to get IPv4 addresses
> and/or kludge your way around them to make v4 applications or hosts work
> even long after the IANA IPv4 runout.

When it becomes difficult to use them the incentive to switch, or build
functional (probably application layer) workarounds for devices that
cannot be upgraded will greatly increase, in many respects that is a
feature and not bug.

I doubt very much that you and I and this mailing list will be
discussing what to do with the stubborn holdouts in 2030, or even 2020
(and yes they will exist, and not they won't be consumers).