[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Dirk Munk]

Chris wrote:
> On 09/21/16 12:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>
>>
>> No, not with IPv6. You really don't want IPv6 <> IPv6 NAT, that is
>> totally against the principles of IPv6.
>>
>
> That's great from an idealistic tech point of view, but in the real
> world, do you really think organisations will toss out all their
> IPV4 routers, switches etc and rebuild the whole system just to use
> IPV6 ?.

No, because if these are recent routers and switches, they will also 
have IPv6. So it is just a matter of enabling IPv6.

>
> No, they will use IPV6 where there is a good business case and the
> rest of the infrastructure will stay at V4 until it's time to upgrade
> the whole network, or for very good reasons. It's cost, cost and cost
> every time vs real benefit. Network kit vendors will produce edge
> routers with V6 at the wan and both V4 and 6 for the internal
> networks.

No, they will produce dual stack routers. These routers will also be 
able to tunnel IPv4 over IPv6 for carrier grade IPv4 NAT.

What they will not do is producing routers that 'translate' IPv6 traffic 
to IPv4 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.
>>
>
> Yes, we know all this, but IPV6 is not necessarily the best solution > for
> all such network problems.

IPv4 is dying, and no one wants to use duals stack for applications if 
it can be avoided. So the future is IPv6.

>
> Being a passionate evangelist doesn't make a belief system true :-)...
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris