This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance). Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A moment of editorializing: I think MAP is the solution for IPv6 transition. It has everything: baked-in native IPv6, a single, simple routing architecture within the service provider's network, the absolute minimal amount of (unavoidable) NAT44 nastiness on the IPv4 side, and the elimination of the need for CGN boxes inside the network. The only downside is the need for new CPE (or at the very least, new CPE firmware) at the user end -- but this would have to happen for native IPv6 anyway, so there's no added cost for this strategy. And the whole thing can be rolled out incrementally, with deployment only to new customers at first. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply