In message <5C263F1C-A180-4EFC-A44F-3E867C6CF4DC(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>, james
woodyatt wri
tes:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 09:36 , Keith Moore wrote:
when the group can define something that is useful in IPv6, it shouldn't ma
tter whether it's also useful for IPv4.
please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of IP
v4 brain damage.
I suspect what Mr. Townsley and Mr. Arkko are aiming at here is that if FUN c
an come up with a scheme to make routed home subnetworks work with delegated
IPv6 prefixes, then it is probably not too far-fetched that the same scheme c
ould be trivially extended for assigning IPv4 subnets from the RFC 1918 priva
te realm to support dual-stack routed home subnetworks.
I'm not expecting home networks to be able to run IPv6-only with the IPv4 Int
ernet mapped to 64:ff9b::/96 through NAT64 for several more years yet. There
's a whole crapload of legacy IPv4-only devices in the average home theater s
ystem today that nobody wants to cut off from the Internet just yet.
I'm expecting home nets to be dual stacked for 10+ years after IPv6
is common to the home (2-5) years. If the home gateway has DS-Lite
support then that provides a better solution than NAT 444. It also
continues to work when the home net goes IPv6 only with the home
gateway passing on the DS-Lite parameters from the ISP.
Consumer electronics lasts 10+ years. I'm still using my DOCSIS
1.0 modem 8+ years. My router hardware is 13+ years old, the
software is newer and is the 6in4 tunnel end point. I've got TV's
of similar vintage.
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, core os networking
_______________________________________________
fun mailing list
fun(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
--
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