On 12/3/09 1:54 AM, "bo zhou" <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Bo] I agree "DS-lite makes E2E transparency argument." But left part I do not > agree. Host-based translation can make the applications running through the > transport network transparency, never care what kind of transport network > (IPv4, IPv6) running. Considering of E2E concept, sort out issues at the end > is better than in the middle of network. > By the way, I think there is a tricky point in DS-lite, DS-lite can assign > unlimited IPv4 address to the host, the concept behind this point is very > similar as A+P: save IPv4, I believe DS-lite is a good solution to save IPv4, > but I am not sure it is a good solution for IPv6 migration and deployment. > People use DS-lite solution never want to update their service to support > IPv6, because no risk of IPv4 address exhaustion exist if DS-lite running > well. > > ===> Bo: > From a service provider perspective, what matter is NOT which flavor of IP I > like or don¹t. What matters is the service > I can offer to my customers. It is true that today, a v4 service has much more > value than a v6 service. Things will certainly change, but right now, this is > the case. > > Now, I want to refute your argument than running DS-lite, you¹ll never want to > update the service to support IPv6. > First and foremost, DS-lite runs over IPv6. That is you MUST deploy IPv6 in > the access network to deploy DS-lite. > Second, this is the opportunity to break the chicken and egg problem. Now, you > have a real v6 access network in place, you can have a serious conversation > with application vendors & content providers to port their stuff to IPv6. > Third, every packet that moves over the now enabled IPv6 network is a packet > that does not move over the DS-lite NAT AFTR IPv4 box. Ie, the more IPv6 > traffic we get, the less reliance we have on that NAT infrastructure and we > can expect to cap the cost. > > Is it a slower route than mandating¹ IPv6 everywhere right now? Sure. But at > least it is a doable thing, that makes business sense. > In the last 15 years, the argument ³let¹s just do IPv6² has not been very > successful... > > - Alain.
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
