Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

[Havard Eidnes <[e-mail]>]

>> That said, I very much agree with Kevin Meyer: "If you want
>> more Enterprises participating in the IETF discussions and
>> improving IPv6 uptake, start thinking about meeting them where
>> they are. And to be crystal clear - NAT is where they are and
>> where they will be for quite a while".
>>
>> My point is, given PCI DSS 4.0 (what Jen wrote as PCR DSS
>> 4.0), we should tell enterprises they no longer need NAT. But
>> if some enterprises still insist, respect their decision.
>
> Ignore them. IPv6 doesn't solve any problem they have, and adding NAT
> to IPv6 still won't solve any problem they have, because IPv6 still
> won't solve a problem they have.

I agree.

Some user groups are always going to be the most conservative
when it comes to adopting "new" technologies (I use quotation
marks as I hesitate to describe IPv6 as new...), for whatever
reason.

My guess: this situation will probably not change until a
destination they care about is only reachable via IPv6.  So far,
few if any have gone that route (for good reasons, of course), as
IPv4 is still the "ligua franca" of the Internet.

Regards,

- Håvard