Subject: RE: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:48:00 -0500

> The plan of record for IPv6 is indeed that you will not use address
> translation and IPv6; frankly, if you still used NAT, there would be
> little reason to move to IPv6 in the first place! What I point out in
> the scenario is, what changes when IPv6 gives you global addressing.

I'm afraid that if ISPs charge per IP address, there will continue to be
NATs.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:03:47 -0400

> I'm afraid that if ISPs charge per IP address, there will continue to be

with 6to4, even a single IPv4 address provides 2**80 IPv6 addresses,
which is more than enough for most organizations.  

so I'd revise your statement to say: if ISPs charge more for a /48 in
IPv6 than they do for a /32 in IPv4, there will continue to be 6to4
boxes.

we should view NAT and v6 as complementary approaches rather than as
competing ones.  NAT gives you the ability to interoperate between
v4 hosts even when there are not enough v4 addresses to go around;
NAT-PT gives you the ability to interoperate between v4 and v4.
v6 gives you the ability to address each host individually, which is
essential to support applications that cannot work through NATs.

I fully expect to find NAT, NAT-PT, and IPv6/6to4 in the same box, 
each handling different kinds of connections.

Keith

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom