Hi, Sri, Inline please,
2009/12/3 Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>: > Hi Hui, > > > > On 12/2/09 7:35 AM, "Hui Deng" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> we have multiple reasons to do this, >> there are lots of operator are planning to do IPv6 only, most of >> people already see that. >> > > I agree, yes, some operators for operational reasons are considering > IPv6-only network. Will they achieve that ? May or may be not. But, lets go > with that assumption for this discussion. > > >> one key point, we are doing IPv6, not IPv4, >> you are proposing that let's support IPv4, and assign them unlimited >> IPv4 address. >> finally nobody use IPv6. > > No, you are offering IPv4-only for the applications :) > > I'm saying, support the case of IPv6-only operational network, 3GPP access > does support that, the core network can be IPv6 only as well. So, we have > IPv6-only network all across. > > - Allow the applications to use IPv6 for host to host applications > - allow legacy IPv4 applications to communicate over IPv4 (per your argument > that only binaries exist for those applications), > - allow v6-only nodes to communicate with v4 internet peers using NAT64. > > But, don't deal with the case of IPv4 legacy application communicating with > a IPv6 future application using IPv4. By allowing that one case which has no > justification, you have to deal with the resulting baggage of host > translation and UE changes. Instead use IPv6 for host to host as you say. > This is not a legacy issue. You are making two different seperated world, it won't success. You didn't answer my previous two emails in seperated line. I could ask here again, you are assigning unlimited IPv4 address to the host, and encouraging me to install IPv4 appliation server, I feel what you proposed is more like prolong IPv4 world and solveing the problem of IPv4 address exhaustion but not IPv6 migration. Based on your proposal, IETF would better to setup a working group about IPv4 address exhaustion about it, other than IPv6 migration. thanks -Hui > > > Regards > Sri > > >> >> Thanks > >> >> -Hui >> >> >> 2009/12/2 Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>: >>> I agree. When there is a case of v4 legacy app unable to use IPv6 transport >>> for what ever reasons, its rather better to go enable IPv4 on the peer, >>> still supporting IPv6-only network over dual-stack lite network. Or, modify >>> the app to use IPv6 transport and avoid the huge cost and management of >>> dealing with a modified stack and on all OS variants. We are mainly mixing a >>> true legacy requirement with new requirements which are debatable. >>> >>> >>> Sri >>> >>> >>> On 12/1/09 9:04 AM, "Durand, Alain" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Why go through all that trouble when you could make the server app >>> dual-stack capable in the first place? >>> That could be done with or without assigning a unique v4 address to it, >>> simply running v4 over v6... >>> Not you¹d be back to a v4 app talking to a v4 app on hosts only having v6 >>> addresses configured natively. >>> >>> - Alain. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
