Subject: RE: (ngtrans) call for discussion on NAT traversial

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:03:59 -0700

> Naturally I'm happy if we develop a solution that works for 
> both the enterprise case and the case where the ISP imposes a 
> NAT.  However 
> I agree that any ISP that imposes a NAT on its customers 
> (thereby greatly impairing their ability to use some Internet 
> applications) 
> will not hesitate to block IPv6 traffic if they want to.  

Keith,

The situation is more common than you assume, and the cause is not
necessarily ill will from the ISP. Many ISPs end up deploying NAT
internally because they could not secure a sufficient address space to
provide individual addresses to each of their customers. There are many
such ISP in Asia,  a few ones in Europe, and some in the US,
particularly among the DSL providers. I have not heard these ISPs making
any threats of blocking IPv6; on the contrary, I have heard many of them
asking for support in deploying IPv6.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:25:00 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with christian...but I believe the ISPs in the U.S. till
supporting IPv6 via the business case they await can be treated as an
internet core/edge black box to pass v4 tunnels thru.  I am working on
your spec now if that helps great.

For u.s. intranets and private enterprise it can be avoided completely.

For europe and asia life will be better with those ISPs for IPv6
transition as they already see the business case and IPv6 deployment at
least at those edges are close to happening now.  This will cause the
their core to  move too.

/jim