[ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar

On 18 May 2015, at 1:27, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 04:49:29PM +0000, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
>> Yes, of course you are right that this is a complex issue, but 
>> there's a
>> widespread tendency to carry the old limitations of today's IPv4 to 
>> IPv6
>> even if there's no real need to do so.  And Marc calling NAT64 a 
>> working
>> solution despite the fact that it breaks IPv6 the same way NAT broke
>> IPv4 really asks to be balanced by a similarly oversimplified 
>> statement
>> going the other way:-)
>
> Actually, the whole point is that NAT64 does not touch IPv6, so it is
> not "breaking IPv6" - it ensures that IPv4 legacy is still reachable,
> even if you're inside an IPv6-only network.
>
> Which sounds quite positive to me, given the alternative is "run 
> dual-stack
> everywhere, forever, because someone out there might still be 
> IPv4-only"...

Right. NAT64-DNS64, while not perfect, is to me the only viable solution 
to move from where we are now to IPv6 in a cost effective manner. 
Running dual-stack is not cost-effective, while ipv6-only could be.

When we first talked about NAT64 a while ago, I hated it. But I became 
fast convinced that it is a very important tool to move to IPv6.

Marc.

>
> Carriers can't "just turn off IPv4" if users still connect to 
> IPv4-only
> sites...  so what is worse, NAT44/CGN and dual-stack all the way to 
> the
> client, or nice and shiny IPv6-only at the edges, and NAT64 for 
> talking
> to the old Internet?
>
> Gert Doering
>       -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. 
> Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279