On Apr 7, 2013, at 00:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the
water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).
True... But... Resources deploying/maintaining all of these keep
IPv4-limping along technologies are resources taken away from IPv6
My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping
anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4 address
exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at any time.
Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet
subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a
completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for
IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. MAP
is also CGN.
No, it really isn't. Sufficient IPv6 deployment at the content side would
actually allow the subscriber side to be IPv4 or dual-stack for existing
customers with new customers receiving IPv6-only. The missing piece there
is actually the set-top coversion unit for IPv4-only devices. (Ideally, a
dongle which can be plugged into the back of an IPv4-only device with an
IPv6-only jack on the other side. Power could be done a number of ways,
including POE (with optional injector), USB, or other.
I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I
don't understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?
IPv6 deployment _IS_ the alternative. They are not orthogonal.