4 Oct
2007
4 Oct
'07
4:42 a.m.
On 3-okt-2007, at 14:14, John Curran wrote:
I'd rather have IPv4 with massive NAT and IPv6 without NAT than both IPv4 and IPv6 with moderate levels of NAT.
That's great, guys, if "IPv4 with massive levels of NAT" actually resembles today's Internet and is actually a viable choice.
It doesn't have to be viable. If it isn't, that's good reason for people to move to IPv6.
Once free pool depletion occurs and address reuse enters the equation, we've got high demand for block fragmentation and a tragedy of the commons situation where everyone's motivations are to inject their longer prefixes and yell at others not to do the same.
Good reason to start working on that IPv6 transition plan while there is still time.