On 6/1/10 9:57 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 30/05/2010 23:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
People are not going to use IPv6 if it takes the slightest effort on
their part. People are not going to switch their home networks over to
IPv6 if it means a single device on the network is going to stop
working. In my case it would cost me $4K to upgrade my 48" plotter to
an IPv6 capable system. No way is that going to happen till there are
$50 IPv6 plotters on EBay.
Sorry, but that's a red herring.
You're speaking about IPv4 decommissioning, not IPv6 implementation.
Implementing IPv6 will do nothing to your local plotter. Your computer
will keep addressing IPv4 to it.
Nothing stops you from always running dual stack at home, with your IPv4
behind your NAT/PAT.
Have you tried implementing IPv6 at home?
By accident when solving a network drop-out problem within a congested
wireless environment, installing an airport extreme router also offered
IPv6 over an IPv4 ISP. Everything just worked.
When later changing providers, the cable modem needed extensive tweaking
before everything worked, which then lowered throughput by about 35%.
To overcome this, several commodity routers were tried, but they were
unable run DHCP once the modem's NAT was disabled. Double NATs cause
additional breakage. Once again, the airport extreme just worked. This
was learning the hard way it seems.
Unless one is careful, one might find themselves using IPv6 without
their knowledge, both globally and locally. Capturing local traffic
showed several applications already making use of the local IPv6 address
space. And I'd even wager that an IPv4 plotter would work, since an
HP IPv4 printer does.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf