Dual stack is a (very) temporary solution while waiting for some others to catch up and deploy IPv6. Contemplating dual-stack as a permanent or long-term solution ignores the extent to which IPv4 is utterly unsustainable at this point.
Owen On Mar 12, 2013, at 02:45 , kpospi...@bigpond.com wrote: > > I would be concerned in strongly spruiking advantages of IPv6 to > executives if an IPv6 dual stack solution is actually being deployed. > (ie. some given IPv6 SS advantages below do not apply to IPv6 DS) > >> 1. Decreased application complexity: >> Because we will be able to get rid of all that NAT >> traversal code, >> we get the following benefits: >> >> I. Improved security >> A. Fewer code paths to test >> B. Lower complexity = less opportunity to >> introduce flaws >> II. Lower cost >> A. Less developer man hours maintaining >> (or developing) NAT traversal code >> B. Less QA time spent testing NAT >> traversal code >> C. No longer need to keep the lab stocked >> with every NAT implementation ever invented >> D. Fewer calls to support for failures in >> product's NAT traversal code >> 2. Increased transparency: >> Because addressing is now end-to-end transparent, we >> gain a >> number of benefits: >> >> I. Improved Security >> A. Harder for attackers to hide in >> anonymous address space. >> B. Easier to track down spoofing >> C. Simplified log correlation >> D. Easier to identify source/target of >> attacks >> II. Simplified troubleshooting >> A. No more need to include state table >> dumps in troubleshooting >> B. tcpdump inside and tcpdump outside >> contain the same packets. >> > > > There are two well documented advantages to IPv6 dual stack: > > - responding to customers requesting IPv6 dual stack connectivity > - excellent access to the IPv4 network > > IPv6 is a *different* network to IPv4 even if both networks happen to be > carried on the same platforms (thank you Cisco, F5, Juniper etc - > without this, our execs would be seriously baulking at having to replace > fairly > modern hardware). > > I have also noticed examples given of historic protocol changes. Not all of > these are relevant as some of them only involved "middle" OSI layers, so > do not apply very well to the IPv6->IPv6 transition. > > > Greets > Engineer Karl Pospisek (alias kpospi...@telstra.com)
