Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:
> And, i will reinterate an important point Nick made. The majority of traffic goes e2e ipv6. A minority of traffic requires NAT64/DNS64. And a sliver of traffic requires 464XLAT or 4464.  Those numbers are all growing in the right direction, more e2e v6.
> 
> What he said. For many operators, the choice was between a) 60% (and growing) native IPv6 traffic, 30% NAT64 traffic, and 5% NAT464 traffic, and b) 100% NAT44 traffic.

And, of course, as IPv6 grows, the reason to translate it diminishes.

Frankly, chair hat off, I'm happy enough seeing IPv6-only domains and 464XLAT where it has to be. The thing for us to focus on right now, I think, is enterprise deployment - at least at their front doors, their web sites and their mail servers. The less folks need IPv4 to talk with their business partners, the less the iron lungs are necessary. From my perspective, that problem eventually takes care of itself. Metcalf's law: the value of a network is a function of the number of it's users.