Yes, this is a problem. I'm not sure NAT is the solution, though. I mean,
if you're going to use NAT, why switch to IPv6 in the first place?
reasons will vary from "because my vendors are pushing it" to "because it
has some feature that makes my life easier" to "because some application
my users are asking for only works on ipv6" to "because it will help me
justify next year's IT budget". one reason that won't be on the list is
"because i cannot otherwise get enough address space to become fully locked
into my current transit provider."
Unless I'm very much mistaken, this transition mechanism ("NAT-PT")
translates from IPv6 to IPv4 and vice versa, NOT from IPv6 to IPv6.
sure, but abusing tools for purposes other than what they were made for is
how most IT directors earn their salaries (though they don't call it that.)
and i don't imagine the site-local address ranges will be given to a RIR,
so folks who decide to number their enterprise in that range and then speak
to "the internet" through an as-yet-unannounced ipv6-nat product will just
do that.
> ... we'll still have the age-old tension between "i could get global
> routing for that address block" and "i could qualify with my RIR to
> obtain that address block (and afford the fees)".
IETF multi6 wg is working on this problem. Hopefully it's possible to come
up with something that offers both scalability and functionality, as
current PI and PA paradigms each only offer one.
as someone who cared deeply about this at one time and who watched A6/DNAME
become a fly on the windshield of ietf backroom politics, i wish you luck.
it's important to remember that large network owners don't care about this,
and they are the ones who tell the vendors what to build. someone who wants
to build a 3G network doesn't want A6/DNAME or any other added complexity
adding logic and bugs to their handhelds or their cell towers. someone who
wants to sell a lot of business-DSL is happier if their customers are locked
in. so exactly where the multi6 group is planning to sell their results, i
can't imagine.
Paul Vixie wrote:
it's important to remember that large network owners don't care about this,
and they are the ones who tell the vendors what to build. someone who wants
to build a 3G network doesn't want A6/DNAME or any other added complexity
adding logic and bugs to their handhelds or their cell towers. someone who
wants to sell a lot of business-DSL is happier if their customers are locked
in. so exactly where the multi6 group is planning to sell their results, i
can't imagine.
Maybe it would go the way of the POTS, ask the regulator to help and something will happen in a decade after the marketshares have been divided?
Pete
Unless I'm very much mistaken, this transition mechanism ("NAT-PT")
translates from IPv6 to IPv4 and vice versa, NOT from IPv6 to IPv6.
sure, but abusing tools for purposes other than what they were made for is
how most IT directors earn their salaries (though they don't call it that.)
I'm not entirely convinced, but replace NAT with a bunch of proxies and you basically have the same thing...
and i don't imagine the site-local address ranges will be given to a RIR,
so folks who decide to number their enterprise in that range and then speak
to "the internet" through an as-yet-unannounced ipv6-nat product will just
do that.
I'd love to be around and watch sparks fly when they start asking for the same ugly hacks in IPv6 that make NAT work to the degree that it does in IPv4. 
IETF multi6 wg is working on this problem. Hopefully it's possible to come
up with something that offers both scalability and functionality, as
current PI and PA paradigms each only offer one.
as someone who cared deeply about this at one time and who watched A6/DNAME
become a fly on the windshield of ietf backroom politics, i wish you luck.
Thank you.
it's important to remember that large network owners don't care about this,
It looks to me like many do...
and they are the ones who tell the vendors what to build. someone who wants
to build a 3G network doesn't want A6/DNAME or any other added complexity
adding logic and bugs to their handhelds or their cell towers.
So why are they sending their people to the IETF to work on mobile IPv6?? (Current MIPv6 spec is version 24 clocking in at 170 pages, implementing that can't be much fun.)
someone who
wants to sell a lot of business-DSL is happier if their customers are locked
in. so exactly where the multi6 group is planning to sell their results, i
can't imagine.
Maybe to the customers of those business DSL shops? And easier multihoming sells more circuits, so I doubt we'll hear people with glass or copper in the ground complain.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So why are they sending their people to the IETF to work on mobile IPv6?? (Current MIPv6 spec is version 24 clocking in at 170 pages, implementing that can't be much fun.)
They do that for job security. Bluetooth 1.0 is in excess of 1000 pages. Not to mention some of the 3GPP stuff.
Pete