In message
<AANLkTimoqnpmKcbitki07KAG9xTROYIv84RqSmo0dq84(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>,
Phil
lip Hallam-Baker writes:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org>
wrote:
I'm thinking 10, 15+ years out when there are lots of IPv6 only
served zones. Much the same way we no longer worry about MTA's
that don't know about MX records and no longer add A records
to accomodate them.
Why would there be any IPv6 only served zones?
Because it going to get harder and harder to get stable IPv4
addresses. ISP's are looking at moving their entire client base
from having unshared public addresses to shared public addresses.
What John and I have been trying to get across here is that there is
no incentive to create an IPv6 only zone now and never will be in the
future. You present an induction without a base case.
Except IPv6 only zones already exist so there must be some incentive to
have them.
Back in the days when Internet on phones meant WAP, there was a
possibility of them being supported on IPv6. But now the iPhone has
changed the model and the Web on a phone will look just like the rest
of the net and so they have to run IPv4.
That is the big flaw in the IPv6 ready program. It assumes that the
incentive for transition is that IPv6 is a good in itself. It is not,
in fact IPv6 will be slower (more header baggage) than IPv4 and if you
are IPv6 only you will have to go through gateways.
And IPv4 will have multiple header re-writting. DPI to "fix up" the fact
that headers have been re-written multiple times along with checksum
re-calculations etc.
I actually expect IPv6 to be faster in the end if only marginally. Most
measurements to day say that IPv4 and IPv6 are roughly the same.
We do seem to be making some progress. I have been banging on about
this problem for six years. When I started NAT was universally
considered to be the problem. People are now seeing the NAT-PT
approach as being a possible framework for a solution rather than
something to be deprecated as 'historic' because they (wrongly)
imagine true Internet is NAT-free.
The more I look at NAT-PT (NAT64/DNS64) the less I like it. Way
too many kludges especially when there is an alternative, DS-lite,
which doesn't have nearly as many problems that need to be kludged
around.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf