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

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> e2e IPv6 is the goal, nobody argues with it. However, China Telecom said
> they would put 100+ million customers in the next 3 years. Obviously neither
> they would get 100+ million public IPv4 addresses nor all the services in
> the world would be IPv6 ready. Yes 6->4 may not be an immediate problem we
> try to solve, but IPv4 exhaustion problem is immediate. I guess we are all
> here to find out the real problems and give guidelines to solve the IPv4
> exhaustion problem and deploy IPv6 in parallel.
>
 +1

For me, the problem is uniquely numbering a very large number of NEW
(m2m, mobile web, current BOGON mess, current n*RFC1918 mess...) hosts
given that IPv4 (public and private), for all intents and purposes, is
strategically (think current planning cycle) exhausted.

My belief is that the reality of edge growth (especially in mobile)
will force IPv6 deployments instead of counter-productive NAT444 and
RFC1918 version 2.  IPv6-only edge deployments will force NAT64 (more
in mobile) and DSlite (more in fixed).   The obvious disadvantages of
DSlite and NAT64 will encourage all parties involved (users, SP,
content) to earnestly TRANSITION to IPv6.  And, hopefully, NAT64 and
DSlite will only be a crutch for the long-tail.  For my users in the
USA, that fact that Facebook and Google / Youtube are already IPv6
make my last statement very close to being true today.