[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Dirk Munk]

Chris wrote:
> On 09/21/16 11:30, Dirk Munk wrote:
>
>>
>> No, NAT is gone with IPv6. Of course there are a few brain-dead guys who
>> designed IPv6 NAT, but as always with IP you can design any idiotic
>> protocol you like.
>>
>
> "Brain Dead" ?, Shurley just an opinion :-)...

No, not with IPv6. You really don't want IPv6 <> IPv6 NAT, that is 
totally against the principles of IPv6.

>
> Perhaps gone in the future, but IPV4 and subnetting will be around
> probably for decades yet.

IPv6 has subnetting too! A normal IPv6 subnet is a /64 subnet. So you 
have 64 bit address space in one subnet. The total IPv4 internet has a 
32 bit address space.

A consumer will get a /56 bit address space, so he can build 256 /64 bit 
subnets at home.

> Where there is a demand, vendors will produce
> kit to translate whatever IVP6 uses to access an address and port, to
> IPV4 addresses and ports.

Why? Every OS has IPv6, any new device has IPv6, IPv4 is on life support.

> Probably quite a healthy demand for such kit
> until IPV6 settles down, proper standards are established and is as
> consistently reliable and easy to configure as is IPV4.

IPv6 is more or less self configuring by default.

>
> The idea of one global address to access anything on the net may sound
> like a good idea, but goes against all best practice design in terms
> of layering of functionality and isolation of sub domains.

I don't understand what you mean. My PC has a global IPV6 address, so 
does my printer, my phone, and so on.

>
> While i'm not against change, change for it's own sake is to be
> avoided
> imho. If it ain't broke etc...

That IPv4 is broken has been known for over 25 years by now. Its 32 bit 
address space is ridiculously small for what we want to do with it.

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>