[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

Randy Bush wrote:
> what amazes me is the lack of real work on the problem that a a jillion
> v6-only sites can not connect to the internet in a useful scalable way.
>  without that, everyone will continue to need ipv4 space for a loooooong
> time.  and it will be sliced and diced, and bought and sold, in smaller
> and smaller pieces.  and nats will be ubiquitous, as if they were not
> already.  this is not a pleasing picture.  but it's the likely reality.

I see a two potential escape paths:

1. larger access providers run into the comcast problem[1] and realise 
that ipv4 is a dead end. this will lead to mass consumer ipv6 enablement, 
potentially with proxies to provide ipv4 transport.

this will be particularly noticeable in emerging markets, where a) there 
is a relatively small install base which leads to a massive requirement 
for address space and b) there are language borders, which means that 
local content providers can service their entire market on ipv6 without 
having to worry about whether the current ipv4 install base can access it

2. wide-scale implementation of NAT at access levels is going to make 
people realise exactly how evil NAT is, and that ultimately, 
administration, hackery and capex costs for obtaining new ipv4 space are 
going to end up as more than the cost of moving to ipv6.  There's nothing 
that concentrates the mind like having your business size constrained by a 
technical problem.

But you're right on about fragmentation.  It's going to happen in a big 
way and the effect on the internet is going to be savage.  Ironically, 
massive fragmentation is a good driver for ipv6 takeup.

Nick

[1] http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/durand.html