[address-policy-wg] Mandating NAT toward the final /8

Gert Doering wrote:

>>The reality is that there is no one with meaningful operational
>>experience of IPv6.

> This assumption is completely unfounded, and quite obviously wrong
> (I know at least one counter-example).

The foundation is that there is no IPv6 network with meaningful scale.

So, there can be no meaningful operational experience gained.

>>>and none of them support the modifications necessary to "help the NAT
>>>gateway", I can't see how this would be a step forward.

>>Read the draft. It is implemented and working on NETBSD5.0.

> It's not committed - and even if it was, the amount of NetBSD machines
> out there is not relevant for home user deployments, where IPv4 shortage
> hits first.  Come back when Microsoft has implemented this, and it's

As for windows, DLL replacement should be more than enough for which
Microsoft involvement is not necessary (and is not likely for XP :-)

> operational relevant enough that it's time to start discussing its
> impact on address policy.

Then, given the current operational status of IPv6, it's not yet
time to start discussing IPv6 impact on IPv4 address policy.

So, we must keep using IPv4 and accept NAT, legacy, end to end or
whatever.

Note again that I am talking about on address policy with NAT in
general, including but not limited to end to end one.

FYI, the following ID is one of the latest attempt to deploy IPv6:

	Prefix NAT: Host based IPv6 translation
	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huang-pnat-host-ipv6-00

which is a lot more complex and a lot less transparent than
end to end NAT and requires 4, 6 and NAT.

Interestingly enough, as you can see from the title, it requires
host software upgrade too.

Do you like it? Or, can you show some realistic operational
transition plan to IPv6?

						Masataka Ohta

PS

I have no intention to standardize end to end NAT in IETF only to
waste yet another 10 years.