Le 29/09/2017 à 18:47, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
Hi Khaled,
On Sep 29, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Suresh,
The problem I’m trying to solve is to overcome the depletion of IPv4
address space and the lack of implementing IPv6 , this will cause the
IPv6 only hosts not to be able to access the whole internet as there
will be IPv6 only hosts (18% of the Internet traffic) against the
domination of IPv4 only hosts (82% of the Internet traffic),
The part that is not clear is why you believe IPv10 will be any more
successful or quicker to widespread deployment than IPv6. Can you share
your thoughts?
IPmix allows IPv6 only hosts to communicate to IPv4 only hosts and
vice versa, and this will allow the coexistence of both version
without any separation or division on the Internet
NAT64 (RFC6146) already allows "IPv6 only hosts to communicate to IPv4
only hosts and vice versa”.
I think I agree.
NAT64 may have some advantages, have a user base, but it may also have
some drawbacks.
The same about DNS64 RFC6147.
If I remember correctly, NAT64, and/or DNS64, maye have been worked in
the v6ops WG?
Was it considered to bring this work to v6ops?
Alex
Regards
Suresh
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
