[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6] IPV4 to IPv6 migration
On 2008-06-03 02:18, David Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/1/08 9:36 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You *NEVER EVER EVER EVER* NAT in IPv6.
>> to say it quietly, there's never any reason to use nat in v6.
>> the only valid reason in v4 is shortage of addresses,
>
> No. In addition to providing additional address space through the use of
> non-uniqueness, people also use NAT to provide for provider independence.
> Since IPv6 uses the same routing technology as IPv4 and it is essentially
> just as hard to renumber a site in IPv6 as it is for IPv4, it follows that
> this use of NAT will remain.
No it doesn't, which is why the current discussions in the RRG matter.
And please don't encourage IT departments to believe that adding and
removing IPv6 prefixes is as hard as renumbering an IPv4 site.
(Note, I didn't say it's easy, just that it isn't as hard.) It's about
time we started looking at IPv6 as an opportunity to develop new and
easier practices, rather than trying to force IPv6 into the IPv4 model.
> Of course, the alternative would be for everyone to use provider independent
> address space, but we're all aware of the fact that this won't scale.
Indeed. The PI model is very close to its sell-by date.
Brian
