In message <5c263f1c-a180-4efc-a44f-3e867c6cf...@apple.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 <j...@apple.com> > member of technical staff, core os networking > > > > _______________________________________________ > fun mailing list > f...@ietf.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: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
