Re: IPv6 standard?

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:

> While the case for "transparent NAT" may be valid,

A+P and other technologies may also have end to end transparency.

> I believe IPv6 to also be a valid and valuable technology forthe
> continued growth and expansion of the Internet.  

> (Even eliding the amount of change required to implement "e2e NAT",

FYI, end to end NAT is already implemented and is running (several
hundreds lines of code, essential part of which is 10 lines for
forward/reverse translation and 100 lines for port number restriction).

Because end to end NAT can be implemented with upward compatibility
to legacy NAT, it can be deployed smoothly. NAT GW may be upgraded
to end to end NAT, which is not visible to legacy end hosts. End
hosts may be upgraded, which will start working after an end to
end NAT gateway is installed.

> and how this comes close to the amount of work (in many regards)
> as deploying IPv6, w/o all of the same capabilities.)

If it comes close to, it means it has failed totally, just as the
amount of effort to deploy IPv6 is an evidence that IPv6 deployment
has totally failed. As for capabilities, IPv6 is no better than IPv4
(with or without end to end NAT).

> And FWIW, I also continue to believe 'the world' agrees with IPv6
> being 'the solution' ... Based not upon current traffic volumes
> (of course), but rather the number of deployments

IPv6 failed because of lack of not only deployments but also
an essential feature.

The objectives of IPng are to extend address space and to aggregate
routing table aggressively.

However, as has discussed recently on renumbering, IPv6 lacks the
capability of renumbering, which makes aggressive aggregation
impossible.

> Or the US federal govt's re-invigorated push towards IPv6 ...

Do you know that USG pushed towards CLNP?

						Masataka Ohta