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

Nick,

On May 22, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps the best future scenario that has a reasonable chance of  
actually getting deployed is a world in which the core is v6 which  
provides IPv4 tunneled transit connectivity to v4 NAT/ALG endpoints.   
IPv6 native hosts within those endpoints could bypass the IPv4 NAT/ 
ALG to connect to IPv6 enabled content.

> 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

This makes the assumption that emerging markets have no interest in  
existing Internet content, the vast majority of which is and will  
remain on IPv4 for the foreseeable future.

> 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.

The most likely future is highly dependent on NAT/ALG.  For the  
foreseeable future, most content on the Internet will continue to be  
provided by IPv4.  In order for IPv6-only sites to access that  
content, you will need to have v6-to-v4 NAT/ALG at one end or the other.

> 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.

OK, I give up.  How does massive fragmentation drive IPv6 takeup?

Thanks,
-drc