<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I may be opening a can of worms here, but for a bit of fun…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I like NAT. It solves a lot more problems that it causes (for me) and it offers a level of flexibility and portability that is a whole lot harder and more complicated (IMO) to solve using IPv6. Here goes: I reckon IPv6 should also support NAT! :-)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Maybe I’m just showing my age here, and the usual resistance to change that comes with the over 50 set ;) but I am one who is certainly not eager to see IPv4 ‘shut down’ – EVER! <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>:-D<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>OK, before I get howled down, sure – I get IPv6, and I agree that it is something good and something needed. My ideal future world, though (at least while I’m around), will continue to be a dual stacked one :-}<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><br>Cheers!<br><br>Mike.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul van den Bergen<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, 5 November 2014 5:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] FW: [Ap-ipv6tf] official shutdown date for IPv4. The date he is pushing for is April 4, 2024. "IPv4 can't go on forever, " Latour said. "<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Last time I looked at IPv6 was circa 2003.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The thing that struck me most about the protocol is that everyone is talking about it as though the best thing is solving the pending IPv4 address limit.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>To me, the single most interesting aspects of the protocol are, in order of importance...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>1) IPSEC. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>2) automatic routing and discovery.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>3) Getting rid of NAT<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>"Getting rid of NAT" is the real problem that is called "IPv4 addresses are running out"... NAT gets in the way, makes firewalls more complicated, less admin friendly, and leads to lots of daft workarounds to allow end to end connectivity that should be easy by now...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In reality, it's the combination of these three aspects working together that make IPv6 a killer protocol IMHO...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I suspect the main thing limiting take up is inertia and inexperience... but I'm happy to be wrong about that :-/<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Matt Palmer <<a href="mailto:mpalmer@hezmatt.org" target="_blank">mpalmer@hezmatt.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:53:05PM +1100, Michael Biber wrote:<br>> Certainly more memorable, but perhaps too far away to provide the incentive.<br><br>No way in hell IPv4 is going to be ready to be turned off in 10 years.<br>It'll probably be "optional" by then, in the sense that your average home<br>DSL[1] might not have IPv4 service by default, but I doubt it won't be<br>supported by most ISPs in some shape or another.<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>- Matt<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dr Paul van den Bergen<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>