NAT-PT IPv6 issue

It was my understanding that there is no NAT for IPv6.

NAT was created under IPv4 as a means of delaying the eventual exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.

If you raise 2 to the 128th power (as IPv6 addresses have 128 bits instead of 32 like IPv4 does), you get approximately 3.4 times 10 to the 38th power Ipv6 addresses for use on the Internet.

The current world population is 6,897,078,213 people according to a Web site I just checked.

If you take 3.4 times ten to the 38th and divide it by

6,897,078,213 you yield approximately 4.933 times ten to the 31st.

That means each person in the world can have 4.933 times ten to the 31st IPv6 addresses without anyone having a duplicate address that is shared by someone else.

Do you think that we will exhaust ourselves of IPv6 addresses even by the end of your great-grandchildren's lifetimes?

So we don't need NAT with IPv6 addressing. There are enough IP addresses to go around.

Now as sure as I'm sitting here, something has changed since I read up on IPv6. If indeed there is NAT for IPv6, I'll be interested in knowing why it is needed. I cant' see any reason for it orfor any other IP address conservation methods under IPv6.

Regards,

Fred

NAT-PT is Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation and it is a mechanism to translate between IPv6 and IPv4. So your IPv6 systems can communicate with IPv4 hosts on the internet, and the router is doing the translation between the protocols (and of course the addresses as well).

Thanks for the information.

Regards,

Fred

T for IPv6. =C2=A0

laying the eventual

=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Fred

Hi, Fred,

THANKS for your input.

We do not know why the issue is fixed automatically in the afternoon. What a strange !!

IPv6 NAT-PT is required due to lots of lots of applications are still using IPv4, while, at now, IPv6 grows at immortal speed.

Due to I am a Cisco techie, so just only understanding Cisco. Cisco articles state that "CEF" must be disabled for enabling NAT-PT...which is no good.

Cheers

If IPv6 is moving ahead at immortal speed, why am I am hearing so little about it. I do contracting work for a government agency and I've yet to hear the subject discussed.

Thanks for the info. I am a CCNA.

Fred

Maybe the government of the country you are working in is sticking the head in the sand, while in Hong Kong they are keeping a bit more up with the times?

And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement.

Sam

Sam Wilson Network Team, IT Infrastructure Information Services, The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement.

:-) Actually I don't think that's technically true - coexistence (dual stacking) is intended to continue.

Sam

Hi,

I heard IPv6 in 2001, got IPv6 training in APNIC in 2010, and provided POC of IPv6 technologies in 2010 & 2011. Dual stack is running, but how about the IPv4 applications which are not intented to be developed any more ( until it is faded out ) ? NAT must be done in this case.

Cheers

Retire IPv4-only applications or put an application gateway in front of them. Developers have had 15 years to prepare for IPv6. Let's get rid of NAT in all its incarnations.

Sam

its incarnations.

You cannot influence what others do (or don't do) on the net. So, when you want to or have to migrate to IPv6 yourself, it is only natural you want to be able to communicate with IPv4 hosts.

In fact, the number 1 reason for the slow adoption of IPv6 is that such a facility was not designed in from the beginning.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@ed.ac.uk (Sam Wilson) writes: | In article | , | " snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com.hk" wrote: | | > On 2f17f%, d8e 7f18e, Sam Wilson wrote: | > > In article , | > > B Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: | > >

| > > > * Sam Wilson wrote: | > > > > And NAT-PT is deprecated - NAT64 and DNS64 are a kind of replacement. | > >

| > > > IPv4 is deprecated - IPv6 is a kind of replacement. | > >

| > > :-) B Actually I don't think that's technically true - coexistence (dual | > > stacking) is intended to continue. | > >

| > > Sam | > | > Hi, | > | > I heard IPv6 in 2001, got IPv6 training in APNIC in 2010, and provided | > POC of IPv6 technologies in 2010 & 2011. | > Dual stack is running, but how about the IPv4 applications which are | > not intented to be developed any more ( until it is faded out ) ? NAT | > must be done in this case. | | Retire IPv4-only applications or put an application gateway in front of them. | Developers have had 15 years to prepare for IPv6. Let's get rid of NAT in all its incarnations.

It isn't at all clear that switching to IPv6 as currently understood will eliminate the need for NAT. Remember that NAT was a response to several problems.

One problem was the difficulty of obtaining provider-independent address space. NAT makes it possible to switch providers without internal renumbering. It seems likely that most people will be unable to obtain portable routable IPv6 address space, and while IPv6 offers (in some sense) easier renumbering and ULAs, the basic problem remains largely unchanged.

Another problem has been the high rental cost of IPv4 addresses. Although price is in some ways related to address scarcity, service providers also use addresses as a measure of "usage". Once upon a time it was said that everybody would get at least a /48 but that notion seems to have fallen by the wayside. It remains to be seen how consumer service providers will allocate addresses to their customers once those addresses are really useful. Even if people typically get a /64 we may see NAT to deal with multiple networks that each want to use 64 bits for their local part.

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Which market are you talking about? I get a /48 from my provider for a consumer DSL line and it costs me nothing (over the normal price of the line with a single IPv4 address).

In article , snipped-for-privacy@example.com (Rob) writes: | Dan Lanciani wrote: | > Another problem has been the high rental cost of IPv4 addresses. Although | > price is in some ways related to address scarcity, service providers also | > use addresses as a measure of "usage". Once upon a time it was said that | > everybody would get at least a /48 but that notion seems to have fallen by | > the wayside. It remains to be seen how consumer service providers will | > allocate addresses to their customers once those addresses are really | > useful. Even if people typically get a /64 we may see NAT to deal with | > multiple networks that each want to use 64 bits for their local part. | | Which market are you talking about?

The market that will exist *once those addresses are really useful*.

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com