[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Enhanced SIIT
My personal opinion is that if you require updating IPv4 hosts why not just
update them to IPv6 stack? The duct tape and band-aids on IPv4 this draft
calls forth is sick at best in my opinion.
FWIW.
--
Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net
_____________________________________________
| \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice)
| Free Daemon Consulting, LLC \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice)
| http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
| "..in support of free software solutions." \ 1.700.227.9094 (IAXTEL)
| \ 250797 (FWD)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
Penned by Iljitsch van Beijnum on 20071017 13:19.48, we have:
| After a half serious post to the IETF list I decided to write a quick
| draft about the following:
|
| Abstract
|
| This document describes an extension to the mechanism outlined in RFC
| 2765 that allows IPv4 hosts to communicate with IPv6 hosts through a
| protocol translation device with full IPv6 compatibility.
|
| For this purpose, a new header is inserted between the IP header and
| the payload protocol such as TCP and UDP. The new header contains the
| bits truncated from the IPv6 address when the IPv6 address is
| translated into an IPv4 address in the 240.0.0.0/4 (class E) range.
|
| http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-v6ops-esiit-00.txt
|
| (I have no patience with the IETF tools right now, will retry that
| later.)
|
| The idea is that hosts with IPv4 connectivity get to talk to IPv6
| hosts without anything NAT-like getting in the way. However, it does
| require some changes on the IPv4 side, but these can be deployed
| incrementally. The assumption is that these changes would be easier
| to deploy than a full IPv6 transition.
|
| I would really like some feedback on whether this is something useful
| that deserves more attention or not.