[afnog] IPv6 Progress

[Mark Tinka]

On Thursday, August 01, 2013 03:26:30 PM Jeff Mason wrote:

> Much of this is very true. For example, the IPv4 space in
> the US has pretty much been exhausted for years. Back
> when I was at Naval Research Lab in Washington DC, in
> 1990-1993 time frame, we had this magical "push" to move
> to IPv6. It was going to be the greatest thing since the
> dawn if IP itself. But, as luck would have it, the
> government folks were not educated enough (I suppose
> that's the proper way to say it) regarding the newer
> protocol and, as the project(s) progressed, they also
> realized that not all devices would readily 'speak
> IPv6.' Additionally, this wonderful idea of NATting came
> about, and with that capability, IPv4 could (and can),
> effectively, live forever.

So did classless routing and BGP-4 :-).

By the skin of our teeth, as they'd say...

> Now, what was not foreseen was that, as more and more
> people NAT, eventually with B-to-B and even
> Private-to-Business VPNs, various NATted addresses will
> begin to collide. I'm sure you may know what I mean but,
> here's an example.

Hence the RFC 6598 /10, but as Leo has already mentioned, 
it's not all roses & daisies in that land either.

> So there you have yet another valid example of how NAT
> will not necessarily suffice for servicing all IP needs
> in the IPv4 arena.

Aye.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20130801/d838c557/attachment.sig>