[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Enhanced SIIT
On 18-okt-2007, at 13:49, Todd T. Fries wrote:
'not too big a deal to modify a v4 host'
The absolute size of the deal isn't in question, it's the relative
size when comparing moving to IPv6 wholesale (not happening at a
reasonable pace) vs a mechanism that lets unmodified IPv6 hosts talk
to unmodified IPv4 hosts (NAT-PT, is now dead) vs a mechanism that
lets unmodified IPv6 hosts talk to modified IPv4 hosts vs a mechanism
that lets modified IPv6 hosts talk to unmodified IPv4 hosts.
Since all hosts that can be reasonably considered upgradable have
both IPv4 AND IPv6 code on board the difference in scope between
modifying one vs the other is small. Obviously changing deployments
is rather different between IPv4 and IPv6.
If you're a v4 host wanting to talk to v6 land, visit:
http://freedaemonconsulting.com.ipv4.sixxs.org/
There's more to life than HTTP. (I happen to be in a place that is
blanketed by a wifi network that only supports port HTTP/port 80.
This is almost useless.)
Proxies are indeed a valid transition mechanism, they are in place and
working, today.
Ok, we can agree on that part then.
What you propose adds more bandaids to IPv4 and further muddies and
confuses
the waters.
I'm sure it will be much easier to go back to a clean architecture
for IPv4 right after we stop running it. :-)
Do you not realize why IPv4 mapped addresses were a bad idea?
That's an unanswerable question, because knowing something (realizing
it) implies the knowledge is true. I DO know that some people think
that, and I vehemently disagree. Using separate APIs to talk IPv4 and
IPv6 is an incredibly bad idea. Now that the IPv6 API is widely
supported, applications should just use that one, whether the
resulting packets are IPv4 or IPv6.
But how does this relate to the question at hand, exactly?