Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 06/08/2014 08:10, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Philip Homburg
>> If dual stack implies no NAT anywhere what is then the correct term for
>> NAT44 or NAT444 along with native IPv6?
>>
>> Just curious. I would call that dual stack. But you don't appearently.
> 
> The current IPv6 dual stack transition mechanism is defined in RFC 4213,
> and it makes no reference to NAT whatsoever. 

Well, this is an interesting way of looking at things.

Since IPv4 has been routinely NATted for most users for most of
the time since broadband arrived, it had never occurred to me before
this morning that some people interpret "dual stack" to mean no NAT44.
RFC 4213 is agnostic about NAT afaik. It does assume that the ISP has
a supply of IPv4 addresses, but it doesn't assume they are globally
routeable. Also, its language doesn't say that it's *the* solution:

   The mechanisms defined here are intended to be the core of a
   "transition toolbox" -- a growing collection of techniques that
   implementations and users may employ to ease the transition.  The
   tools may be used as needed.  Implementations and sites decide which
   techniques are appropriate to their specific needs.

When I mentioned operators (including my home ISP) that happily
operate dual stack, I was certainly assuming CPE NAT, and operators
that have enough IPv4 space for one-address-per-customer.

Clearly operators that aren't in that position will make a different
trade-off. That's been driving a great deal of work in the last few
years: CGN for NAT444, 100.64.0.0/10, NAT64/DNS64, DS Lite, XLAT and more.

I just don't see the point in defining some sort of "official"
position of the IETF. Who does that help?

   Brian