On Friday, December 14, 2012 11:58:45 AM Seth Mos wrote: > This could all have been painless years ago with plain > Dual-Stack and nobody would have to scream.
The problem with that is that IPv4 would still have run out at some point, and several users/operators would still not have turned on IPv6, or ported all their applications to support it. So at some point, you'd still need some kind of transition technology for those who are still only "advertising" IPv4. > At this point we don't have much in the way of transition > technologies, and i'm not referring to 6to4/6rd here, > but NAT64/DNS64, 464XLAT, 4rd and DS-lite. NAT64/DNS64, while heavy, is my personal favorite. Everything else will require yet another migration to native/full IPv6 once the balance shifts against IPv4 traffic. NAT64 means that as IPv6 becomes more rampant, the need for NAT64 actually fades as more traffic is now IPv6 in composition. I did a lot of testing of NAT64/DNS64 earlier last year on a Cisco ASR1006 box, and that went quite well. Of course, IPv6 literals is still your biggest problem, but with any luck, folk will like DNS more in IPv6 than they do in IPv4 :-). Also, Skype, a couple of instant messengers, e.t.c., needed to add IPv6 support (new job, haven't followed progress on that yet). > Those will need to be added in the future but are less of > a priority then basic dual stack support. Agree. Step by step :-). At any rate, I'd be implementing NAT64/DNS64 in the core anyway, so while I wouldn't subject my pfSense installation to this, I suspect several others would. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
