[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

Hi Randy,

This statement refers back to something I presented at the last AMS RIPE 
meeting. There, I tried to underscore the point that we are at an 
inflection point in IPv4 NAT deployment, similar to the one we entered 
10 years ago or so when the first level of NAT came on the scene. Then, 
the first level of NAT broke some applications that expected a global 
IPv4 address, and they eventually evolved to work around it (and so did 
perception of the average Internet user). The second level of NAT will 
break more, and there will be more evolution and change of perception. 
What I'd like to see is enough IPv6 out there at the same time this 
turmoil is taking place that the applications see value in including 
IPv6 in their repertoire of connectivity options. Hence the deadline in 
my mind that IPv6 needs to reach some level of critical mass to the end 
user before NAT44444 reaches a certain level of prevalence. It's 
essentially a war between these two, and I see 6rd as a weapon on the 
side of IPv6.

Viable IPv6-only service to the residential home is a long way off, and 
that's not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that 6rd moves 
up the timeline for dual-stack IPv4 (perhaps natted) and IPv6 deployment 
for at least some SPs. And, that this may be critically important for 
the success of IPv6.

- Mark

Randy Bush wrote:
>> My main goal with supporting 6rd is to see IPv6 deployed by Service 
>> Providers, preferably before the onslaught of CGNs leading to RFC1918 
>> Private IPv4 as the new default Internet Access.
>>     
>
> excuse that i am a little slow.  how does 6rd address/obviate the issue
> which seem to drive ntt and others to cgn?  from my understanding, it
> just lets end sites, who could care less, live in an ipv6 world through
> the nat4444444 core.
>
> randy
>
>