Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 2:36 PM +0900 7/1/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> >  > > Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have
> > >  > IPv6 at IETF meetings
> > >
> > >  good luck. Until the ISPs and our corporate networks deploy it, we
> > >  can't go there.
> >     to use legacy protocol like IPv4 :-) you can use IPv6-to-IPv4
> >     tranlators like NAT-PT or RFC3142.
> NAT-PT (RFC 2766) is being moved to Historic status. RFC 3142 is
> Informational. Without a standards-track method for people to use IPv4,
> changing a production network to IPv6 seems unwise.
The thing to do before thinking of removing IPv4 connectivity is too
look at which applications are actually using IPv4.
NetFlow/sniffing etc can be used to determine these organization wide.

Most likely you will come down to at least:
 - HTTP -> for which one can use a HTTP Proxy which does v4+v6
 - SMTP -> for which one can use SMTP :) (does both v4+v6)
 - IMAP/POP -> let the app handle it

In the end though one needs to have a machine somewhere which does both
IPv4 and IPv6 and translates between them. But on the Application
Protocol level, not by changing bits like NAT-PT does.

I am not sure, but is there not a draft/rfc/paper which details
something like "Common application migration path from IPv4 to IPv6"?
It is now I guess all cluttered all over the place. Maybe a Wikipedia
article would be more appropriate, outlining which protocols can be
resolved in way X and/or Y. This also allows everything to be in a
central place which pointers to the programs that can do this too.

Greets,
 Jeroen

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf