Brian,
All,
Thank you for your comment.
> I think the concern some of us have is that the mechanism *will*
> extend the life of IPv4 much more than it encourages the growth
> of IPv6. Can you explain the economic incentive for a user to switch
> to using IPv6 in your model?
The reason to switch to IPv6 is not economic reason. The reason is
technical reason. Customers under the Large Scale NAT (LNS) will
have technical restriction like the limitation of session. This
restriction is the direct reason for switching to IPv6 in our model.
Let me explain why to insist on the NAT444 + Shared Address
even if it has technical restrictions and it leads extending the
life of IPv4.
We have to continue expanding Internet(v4/v6) after the IPv4
exhaustion that comes in two years. We have only two years.
In this two years, we have to complete designing network, planning
migration, development, budgeting, replacing or upgrading some
backbone equipment, access network, customer's CPEs, replacing
management tool, upgrading backend system, database, testing,
installing .... and so on.
Basically, to do all above (and more), we have to invest a lot and
take technical risk whatever network model we choose.
As Miyakawa-san explained at the Technical Plenary in Dublin,
NAT444 network model is one of the easiest way for migration.
We don't have to use brand new technology. Many Japanese
Cable operators have used Middle Scale NAT.
If we use NAT444 + Shared Address, we can migrate without asking
customers to replace CPE as told at the Plenary.
akira
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
