Hi Silvia and list,
Silvia Hagen <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Benedikt
>
> But in combination with 464XLAT it seems to do the job well enough to
> support millions of IPv6-only users for T-Mobile. And thereby allows
> them to deploy v6-only at the edge, where address consumption is
> highest.
>
> So maybe it would be good to differentiate a bit more and not throw
> out the baby with the bathwater.
fair enough, but even then 464XLAT is a transition technology which
following your reasoning causes a long term problem that software
developers can't rely on end-to-end connectivity even with IPv6. In
other words, while it helps in the short term, we'll pay dearly for it
in the long run.
Yes, of course you are right that this is a complex issue, but there's a
widespread tendency to carry the old limitations of today's IPv4 to IPv6
even if there's no real need to do so. And Marc calling NAT64 a working
solution despite the fact that it breaks IPv6 the same way NAT broke
IPv4 really asks to be balanced by a similarly oversimplified statement
going the other way:-)
So the real question is: How do we deal with exactly that risk,
i.e. that some transition technologies burden the IPv6 world with
otherwise unnecessary legacy issues?
Cheers,
Benedikt
--
Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting
Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/
Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects
BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/
