'Upgrading' NAT64 to 464XLAT?

[Doug Barton]

On 11/26/2013 12:31 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 05:22:15PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that we should have designed 464xlat on day one instead
>> of DNS64? That's a bit like saying that we should have designed fiber
>> optics without having copper. If DNS64 had not been designed and
>> implemented we wouldn't have 464xlat today.
>
> I think he's saying that everyone should be using dual-stack, because
> that's so much easier to roll out and maintain, and there's still plenty
> of IPv4 left in the US region.
>
> (Let me say that if *I* had a mobile network where I pretty much know
> what sort of devices and stacks are being used, I'd go for IPv6-only PDP
> plus 464xlat as well.  On "DSL style" end user connections, with a
> gazillion of unknown devices and applications, I'd more likely go for
> IPv6+DS-Lite or IPv6+MAP - or full dual-stack *if* I had the addresses,
> which is one of the small obstacles Doug seems to conveniently overlook...)

Which uses more IPv4 addresses, a traditional IPv4 NAT or 464xlat? At 
the end of the day the PLAT still has to talk to the v4 net.

And frankly I take offense at the gratuitous American bashing here. I 
worked my ass off for years publicly and privately pushing v6 adoption 
and readiness; before, during, and after my time at ICANN. I continue to 
work hard to encourage my customers and others privately, in spite of my 
ever-increasing distaste at the mess the IPv6 literati have made of 
deployment generally and the protocol specifically. And I've done all 
this precisely BECAUSE I could do the math on the IPv4 runout, and I 
still believe the Internet is too important a thing to be left 
exclusively in the hands of the privileged few.

When I argue against ivory tower purity and in favor of practical 
solutions that meet real world needs it's not because I'm trying to make 
points on some imaginary scoreboard. It's precisely because we needed to 
deploy IPv6 widely 10 years ago, and every misguided path we send people 
down, every pointless bell or whistle we add to the protocol, and every 
time we say "no" to completely reasonable requests like DHCP parity we 
delay that widespread deployment. And that pisses me off.

So you should feel free to make any technological argument you want, and 
if you can point out an area where I'm demonstrably wrong I'll thank you 
for it. But don't insult me personally because I dare to disagree with 
your opinion.

Doug