Re: Whatever happened to the great migration to IPv6?
> not true, there are IPv6 to IPv4 gateway address ranges that map 1:1 from IPv6 to IPv4.
But there are no assigned "IPv4 gateway address ranges" on the IPv4 side. If you want to use any of these mechanisms, you need to use your own IPv4 addresses, which is back to the point of always needing IPv4.
(There is RFC 6598; these are private addresses for NAT444, not public addresses for NAT64)
> One of those, the "well known" mechanism, is described here:
> (in this case the ISP would have to supply a NAT64 server to deal with the IPv4 connections)
They would have to supply not only the NAT64 router and DNS64 server, but also a pool of their own IPv4 addresses for the back-end of the NAT64 router.
At that point, all their customers are sharing from this pool of IPv4 addresses, so they are in the same situation as they would be with NAT444 in terms of keeping individual connection records for handling police/abuse searches.
In one key aspect, I agree with you. The advantage of NAT64 is that you can run *single stack* IPv6 at the customer edge. If people have only to build and deploy a single network technology and get full Internet access, then there is a chance it will work.
However the message for the past twenty years has been that people should deploy *dual stack*. This means they have to deploy a fully complete and working IPv4 network, *and* an IPv6 network alongside it. But if they don't bother with the IPv6 part, they will still have a complete and working Internet connection. This means there is no business benefit (to themselves) in deploying the IPv6 part.
Businesses are more savvy than you give them credit for. They will spend their time and money on things which make them money.