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

> 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.

lemme try once more.  i think 6rd is cool.  and it certainly is better
than teredo and similar <bleep>.  but ...

it does nothing to stave off nat44444 deployment as it does not address
the big broadband provider's cloud address space issue.

it lets an end site punch ipv6 through the nat44444, but why does the
home user care if they're in 1918 space or ipv6 space?

as you say, end user apps may be encouraged to become v6 capable.  but
aren't almost all v6 capable now, or moving quickly?

so no harm.  it's cool.

but nothing to slow the horror of nat44444, which is gonna essentially
break the internet.

randy