On 24/11/2007, at 12:44 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23 nov 2007, at 12:27, David Miles wrote:again, why introduce translation between IPv6 hosts and legacy servers when every OS I can think of that supports IPv6 also supports IPv4 through dual stack.Because that way operators need to keep running two versions of IP side by side. since everything is reachable over IPv4 anyway, this provides essentially zero benefit over the situation where you just have IPv4. This means people won't deploy IPv6 but will stick with IPv4 even when the layers of NAT are piled on.With IPv6+NAT-PT on the other hand, the network can be IPv6-only which has a number of benefits over an IPv4 network, especially when IPv4 addresses are scarce.
I disagree. This approach would require every host within the service provider's network to support IPv6. Further, I see a driver for IPv6 as described below - NAT breaks end-to-end connectivity, IPv6 provides an alternative.
After all, if we come up with a "translation" protocol for IPv6 to IPv4 then we have not absolved ourselves from solving the issue for non-IPv6 hosts.Which issue?
What will you do with those devices that do not support IPv6?
In an IPv4 address depleted world, non-IPv6 devices still need to work!They do, you just can't add new ones.
I'm somewhat confused - are you suggesting the operator runs two versions of IP side by side?
-d