[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Den 2016-09-21 kl. 10:38, skrev Richard Levitte:
> Den onsdag 21 september 2016 kl. 10:27:26 UTC+2 skrev Jan-Erik
> Soderholm:
>> Den 2016-09-21 kl. 10:15, skrev Richard Levitte:
>>> Den onsdag 21 september 2016 kl. 10:01:55 UTC+2 skrev Dirk Munk:
>>>> Now keep in mind that access from the internet to your LAN is not
>>>> limited to web servers etc. There can be TV cameras on your LAN
>>>> allowing you to check what is going on at home. You may want to
>>>> switch on the heating system or the air conditioning half an hour
>>>> before you arrive home, You may have a NAS on your LAN, and you
>>>> may want to safe or retrieve documents from it over the internet.
>>>> And so on.
>>>>
>>>> All these things require a proper network setup, and alas with
>>>> IPv6 the IETF completely forgot to draft the proper RFC's.
>>>
>>> I'm curious, exactly what is it that you require?  Is it something
>>> that must exist at the IP level?
>>
>> It is an expansion of the DNS infrastucture to also include all those
>> "things" that today has a "private" IP address (192.168.n.n or
>> similar) that today are behind NET'ed routers, so that they will be
>> reachable using their domain name from anywhere.
>>
>> It is, as I understand it, an 10-50 *times* expansion of the DNS
>> world as we see it today.
>
> That's not an IP level issue, as far as I can tell, but an application
> level one (DNS is on the application layer), and has nothing to do
> specifically with IPv6 (you're mentioning IPv4), so that didn't quite
> answer my curiousity.

I mentioned IPv4 as a reference. The need Dirk is talkning about
is for IPv6. IPv6 will replace IPv4 NAT'ing with individual/unique
world-wide IP addresses for "everything". And they need DNS.

>
> That being said, what you seem to be asking...

I am not Dirk Munk...


> is for those "private" addresses to become essentially public...

That is how *I* understand Dirk, yes. Dosn't have to be correct... :-)


> or is this more about mobile
> networking (which comes with its own set of shenanigans)?
>
> Cheers, Richard
>