In message <E4783BE7-33A8-46F3-B9BF-5273C82EE666(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pat
rik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
On 28 maj 2010, at 21.39, Jari Arkko wrote:
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack
(full stop).
Unfortunately on applications layer I do not see enough operational
experience/best practice/actual implementations that handle this in a
very good way. The number of people I talk with that are nervous the
cost for customer support will be higher(!) for dual stack situations
than IPv6 only. I.e. that there are some arguments in favor of "one day
simply give the client an IPv6 address only instead of an IPv4 address
only".
And have any of those that say this tried:
1) tried dual stack
2) tried IPv6 only through NAT64 (NAT-PT)
with a sample of customers or are they just talking without any
reference points. There is a lot of legacy equipment that requires
IPv4 for something (e.g Windows XP for DNS servers, NFS support,
...) so you can't go to IPv6 only on the local net. Dual-stack in
one form or another will be with us for a long time on the local
net.
Runing dual stack internally without external IPv4 connectivity is
just as bad as running dual stack internally without external IPv6
connectivity. You just don't want to go down that path.
We are years away from being able to run IPv6 only networks locally.
There is way too much software that is not IPv6 ready.
Yes. I've tried to run IPv6 only. Real IPv6 only, IPv4 completely
disabled in the OS. It wasn't fun.
Mark
That I get the question, that people think in these terms, I think is
"interesting".
Patrik
--
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