RE: *****SPAM***** RE: Enhanced SIIT

["Hesham Soliman" <Hesham@elevatemobile.com>]

 > Why not extend MIP?
 > 
 > One can assume that people would roam between v4 only and v6 
 > only sites
 > in future.
 > could MIP not be a technology dealing with this?

=> See:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-05.txt
and 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-05.txt

Hesham

 > 
 > G/
 >  
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
 > Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
 > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:05 PM
 > To: todd@fries.net
 > Cc: Brian E Carpenter; IPv6 Operations; Jari Arkko
 > Subject: 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?
 > 
 >