[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Chris]

On 09/25/16 15:53, Dirk Munk wrote:

 > I don't care if you put 1000 firewalls behind the router, and as have
 > have explained over and over again, you can use subnets.
 >
 > Your whole mindset is "I want to stay with IPv4". You can do that, but
 > you will loose that battle in the end. And in between you're going to
 > spend an awful lot of effort to keep away from IPv6.
 >
 > Instead you should admit to yourself that IPv6 is the future, and the
 > you have to migrate to IPv6, and at the same keep older IPv4-only
 > devices working.
 >
 > A dual stack infrastructure will give you that possibility. You can
 > start with your network design, IPv6 should be supported on your
 > network. You have to make a number plan etc.
 >
 > Then you can start adding IPv6 to each server, and building your
 > applications with IPv6 next to IPv4. Many standard applications like
 > databases already are IPv6 enabled.
 >
 > As soon as two devices can use IPv6 to communicate with each other, they
 > will do so.
 >
 > In the end, when you don't need IPv4 any more, you can just switch it
 > off, and remove the stack from your applications.
 >

I have no problem with the adoption of V6 when the time comes and no
argument that it is needed. It's not enough of an interest at the mo
for me to start experimenting. Have more important or interesting
things to do day to day. What I have been trying to do here is to
counter the simplistic arguments for and to illustrate the real
difficulties in getting there, at least in the short term.

For example:

There's a whole world's worth of legacy V4 kit out there, computing such
as Vax, Alpha etc, routers, switches and other network kit, industrial
equipment, home systems, POS etc. An endless list of kit, much of it
out of support and V4 only, with no possibility of ever running V6.
How do you propose that we deal with that in a V6 only world ?

Thus, the argument that translation strategies will be needed, with
coexistence of V4 and V6 for the forseeable future. I also see dual
stack as a bodge and yesterday's solution, adding complexity where
there may be better and simpler alternatives, some as yet undiscovered.
All major changes and developments like this are incrementally
specified and augmented and lifecycle V6 will be no different, imho.

Do a search on V4 to V6 translation and there's loads of work going on,
including open source efforts. From what I have read in some of the RFC
material, translation is being discouraged, as being "difficult", for
the obvious reason that it will slow the overall rate of adoption, so
politics and nudging comes into this as well :-)...

Regards,

Chris