Hi Randy, This statement refers back to something I presented at the last AMS RIPE meeting. There, I tried to underscore the point that we are at an inflection point in IPv4 NAT deployment, similar to the one we entered 10 years ago or so when the first level of NAT came on the scene. Then, the first level of NAT broke some applications that expected a global IPv4 address, and they eventually evolved to work around it (and so did perception of the average Internet user). The second level of NAT will break more, and there will be more evolution and change of perception. What I'd like to see is enough IPv6 out there at the same time this turmoil is taking place that the applications see value in including IPv6 in their repertoire of connectivity options. Hence the deadline in my mind that IPv6 needs to reach some level of critical mass to the end user before NAT44444 reaches a certain level of prevalence. It's essentially a war between these two, and I see 6rd as a weapon on the side of IPv6. Viable IPv6-only service to the residential home is a long way off, and that's not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that 6rd moves up the timeline for dual-stack IPv4 (perhaps natted) and IPv6 deployment for at least some SPs. And, that this may be critically important for the success of IPv6. - Mark Randy Bush wrote:
My main goal with supporting 6rd is to see IPv6 deployed by Service Providers, preferably before the onslaught of CGNs leading to RFC1918 Private IPv4 as the new default Internet Access.
excuse that i am a little slow. how does 6rd address/obviate the issue which seem to drive ntt and others to cgn? from my understanding, it just lets end sites, who could care less, live in an ipv6 world through the nat4444444 core.
randy