[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ocean: do not boil
Hi Hesham,
=> I'm not trying to be -ve,
I'm not sure what "-ve" means, but I'm certain that you
aren't trying to be it :-).
but unless we mandate
that all applications will use this model, or alternatively
assume that HTTP and SMTP are the only important applications
for the medium term there is no point eliminating the
v6 -> v4 scenarios.
Which model? All widely deployed IPv4 applications work with
the existing IPv4 model. If that model continues to be the way
to reach IPv4 services (as I have suggested), there wouldn't
be any need to change existing IPv4 services.
Clearly (at least to me), it would be pointless to start
making "recommendation for application layer protocol
developers" in this group. This _is_ boiling the
ocean IMHO.
I agree. Requiring a application-layer proxy for each type
of application is not desirable.
> We can suggest any one of these solutions, and people are,
> of course,
> entitled to ignore us. Given the choice between these
> three, though,
> the third one seems simpler
=> Can you please explain why it is "simpler" ?
In my opinion, the use of parallel IPv4 and IPv6 infrastructure
is simpler than IPv4<->IPv6 translation, because it doesn't
require special support from the DNS system (either servers or
resolvers), doesn't require injection of routes for special
IPv6 address prefixes, and doesn't, inherently, require any
translation.
Now, it is true that the IPv4 infrastructure may include a
NAT. But, even in those cases, the parallel use of IPv4 avoids
complexity in the DNS and routing tables.
and less prone to introducing new
> architectural and application-level issues,
=> What does this mean?`what architectural issues
are reduced by v4 NATs?
The use of parallel IPv4 and IPv6 infrastructure, even with
the use of IPv4 NATs, does not introduce any _new_
architectural issues. Yes, there are some major architectural
issues with IPv4 NATs, but these issues are not new, and IPv4
applications have already been modified/limited to work within
this type of environment.
since the IPv4
> infrastructure
> would be exactly the same as what many people are using today.
=> Margaret, please consider my concern: I am not talking
about networks with _existing_ IPv4 infrastructures/NATs.
I hope my intention is clear. I know that many ISPs
already have v4 NATs and this is not the case I'm bringing
up.
Yes, I understand this, Hesham.
But, I really do think that it would be wiser for a networ
operator to install parallel IPv4 and IPv6 infrastructure in a
new installation, if any of the nodes on their network will
need to access IPv4-only services.
Installing an IPv4 NAT and DHCP server won't be any harder than
installing a v4<->v6 translator with DNS and routing tie-ins. You
won't need any more IPv4 addresses than you do in a v4<->v6
translation model (you will always need a v4 address to access
a v4 service), and using a "normal" (by today's standards)
IPv4 infrastructure will result in fewer problems accessing
IPv4 applications and services.
What am I missing?
Margaret