> The "supposed problems" start with most networks using NAT and a real lack of conversion or easy bridge strategy. First of all, NAT is neither a part of IPv4

> The "supposed problems" start with most networks using NAT and a real lack of conversion or easy bridge strategy. First of all, NAT is neither a part of IPv4 nor specific to IPv4. IPv4 works just fine without NAT, apart from the lack of addresses, obviously, and there is nothing in IPv6 that prevents you from doing NAT. It's a stupid idea, but you can do NAT with IPv6 if you insist. But I guess more importantly: IPv6 was invented when NAT wasn't all that common yet, so really, the original choice was between deploying IPv6 and installing NAT everywhere, and people chose to deploy NAT ... to then complain that there is no transition mechanism from the NAT dead end they chose to the IPv6 alternative they had right from the start? And also, I don't really see the problem. Why would you need a special transition mechanism? Just don't use NAT?! There is relatively little actual benefit to using NAT anywhere, other than working around the address shortage. > Are you actually saying a network of any size is easily converted to IPv6 with all services coming up fine? Why would you possibly want to "convert to IPv6"? You just roll out IPv6 in addition to IPv4 and enable IPv6 on one service at a time and fix up any problems you see!?