ocean: do not boil

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

first, thanks for doing a great job in sunnyvale.  i think it was
worth the effort and pains.  of course, time will tell, as we see
how the scenarios flesh out.

but, i have been rather worried by one vector.  

i don't think we should try to solve the problem of an arbitrary
user/service on a pure v6 site/host trying to communicate with a
user/service on a pure v4 site/host or vice versa.

dns is critical infrastructure, and we need to understand how
everyone will see the same namespace whether they are on v4 or v6
transport [0].  and we have some clues on how to do that, point
mono-stack resolvers at dual-stack caching servers.

but services such as http, smtp, blah, blah, blah just can't be
completely transparent, and we *vastly* increase the size of the
problem if we try to make them so.

if i want my web site seen by both v4 and v6 users, then i can
connect it to v4 and v6 space and run dual stack.  in fact, i do so
today.  as v6 deploys, folk every useful site will do so.

if i want to send mail to v4 users and i live in a pure v6 world,
then i can make an arrangement with a dual-stack relay to provide
forwarding service to me.  and to receive mail, i can just point an
MX naming an A record to a dual-stack forwarding service.

if i want to play a net.game which is in v6-land, then i need to be
at least partially in v6-land.  no magic.  tough patooties.

trying to make pure v4 sites/hosts communicate for arbitrary
services with pure v6 sites/hosts and vice verse is a nice way to
make the problem vastly more complicated, the solutions vastly more
complex, and the net much less reliable.  let's not go there.

randy

---

[0] - if you're in private v6 space, i.e. site local or other
      1918-envy games, use multiple views just as a v4 1918 site
      does today.