On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Yiu L. Lee wrote:
From user’s perspective, do they care IPv4 or IPv6? Most don’t. For example: a casual web user wants to access his/her favorite IPv4-only website. If his web client and PC support IPv6 and on an IPv6-only network with NAT64, the web traffic will go through the NAT once. If his web client and PC support IPv4-only on an IPv4 network with NAT444, the web traffic will go through the NAT twice. In the end, he/she still gets the same content. From this perspective, both experience “could be” very similar.
Yes and no. For the web, which is a client-server protocol, you are correct. Any protocol that requires the receiver to have a stable address at the time the sender decides to send to it - a server of any kind, or a peer-to-peer protocol like SIP - one has to have some kind of NAT-traversal mechanism to cross it - it pretty much becomes a service the user is sold or (think bittorrent) the application goes through some kind of hijinks to evade the service provider. For the user, the freedom of being able to use such applications without heaving to have them as a service has been one of the drivers of p2p applications.
However, this use case is rather limited and not applicable to many applications. This is why I said “could be”. Also, both Cameron and I agree that this is easier to implement IPv6-only on mobile network than on fixed network because mobile operators have more control over the devices and apps. IMHO, it will take longer time for fixed network operators to support NAT64 only solution in the network.
CERNET/CERNET2 started from stateless translation, and is a fixed network. So I would be careful saying "never". But frankly, the solution for the fixed operators is not translation 6<->4; it is IPv6 deployment. well, I mean: why customer experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64?
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
In order to deploy IPv6-only + NAT64, the client and network must talk IPv6. It also requires DNS64. These requirements are not needed for IPv4-only + NAT444. From the deployment point of view, they are very different technologies.
On 8/25/10 7:13 AM, "huang cancan" <cancanhuang110@gmail.com <http://cancanhuang110@gmail.com> > wrote:
hi,Yiu:
As you mentioned below:
> All I am saying is the customer
> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64, but
> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different.
Do you have any test data to support this conclusion?
Can-can Huang
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com <http://yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> > wrote:
> Agreed. The 2x cost is really just the packet core ... which is of
> course a lot of money to double for no tangible benefit ..... talk
> about no business case .... And, still have numbering issues, customer
> experience is the same as IPv4-only + NAT44 and approximately the same
> as IPv6-only + NAT64
>
Life cycle of mobile equipments could be every 2-3 years, but life cycle of
consumer electronics could be 5+ years. Consider many large TVs with
Internet service selling today are still running IPv4-only, fixed line
operators must prepare to support them in foreseeable future.
That said, I am not saying an operator must build a dual-stack core network,
there are technologies such as DS-lite and Softwire Mesh available to run a
pure IPv6 core network with dual-stack edge. All I am saying is the customer
experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64, but
the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different.
_______________________________________________
v4tov6transition mailing list
v4tov6transition@ietf.org <http://v4tov6transition@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
v4tov6transition mailing list
v4tov6transition@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
|