Re: [sunset4] draft-tsou-stateless-nat44

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

On 07/13/2012 08:36 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> [WEG] The chief criticism leveled at IPv4-only NAT solutions is that
> they do nothing to encourage IPv6 deployment, and instead function as
> IPv4 life-support by allowing carriers to delay deployment of IPv6.
> The authors will have a significant burden of justification as to why
> this is better than MAP in that it doesn't push the implementer to
> deploy IPv6 on the network (or at least allow the use of IPv6 as
> transport).

You know what, I'm an optimist. I believe operators when they say they 
do want to deploy IPv6, and I believe they're doing it. I see IPv6 doing 
pretty good. It's getting deployed. I think we can fully decouple the 
problem of IPv6 deployment and residual IPv4 access. We're beyond that 
now. I don't think tying IPv6 to a residual IPv4 access protocol will 
have any impact on IPv6 adoption. It's already getting adopted quite nicely.

> Also, there are already multiple competing stateless
> solutions. I'd rather not add another without a very good statement
> of what problem it's solving that the existing ones do not. That's
> actually the reason for question #2 - "existing technologies" also
> refers to alternate solutions to the same problem that are still in
> draft, not just existing running code.

See my response to Dan Wing for two advantages of SLNAT44 over MAP.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca