On 10/7/16, 6:04 AM, "sunset4 on behalf of Philip Homburg"
<sunset4-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of pch-sunset...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>In your letter dated Thu, 06 Oct 2016 23:28:32 +0000 you wrote:
>> Nastygram. So make the default IETF SSIDs IPv6-only or (+NAT64)
>> if you want. Then have the ietf-legacy network, which would give
>> you IPv4 and a portal page penalty that you have to state the nature
>> why you have to use this network and cant live on the default one.
>> Id be so curious to see what happens when people finally have to
>> start thinking about it.. and open internal tickets .. It was
>> great fun doing it 6-ish years ago, ..
>
>Personally, I consider offering NAT64 over wifi quite absurd. The obvious
>way to provide access to legacy IPv4 is some form of NAT4. How it is
>transported over the rest of the network is upto the network operator. But
>the obvious interface is RFC 894.
We should do what we can to get ahead of the transition, noting what
applications break, improving our experience with transition mechanisms, or
whatever we can to make the transition smoother for the rest of the Internet.
The fact that there is an IPv4 assignment to the IETF network does not mean
other networks also have one, and we need to get ahead of what others will
experience on their networks.
>
>So on networks that promote NAT64 (FOSDEM has this setup for quite a number of
>years now) I just connect to the legacy network. Their legacy network has
>perfectly fine IPv6, so I consider it way better than the NAT64 that
>'everybody' likes to push.
The ietf-legacy SSID would still be evailable.
>
>For the specific mobile weirdness, NAT64 make sense. But everywhere else,
>requiring every device to have 464xlat to deal with IPv4 literals is just
>bad engineering. If your backbone is IPv6-only, then the obvious solution
>is to deal with this in CPEs, wifi access points, etc. Not to require all
>hosts to know the details of your network.
I mostly agree. Hosts (and users) shouldn't have to know what's going on.
But the use of IPv4 literals is bad engineering; the fact that hacks are
required to make it work is inherent.
A lack of IPv6 support is abdication by application developers.
Lee
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
sunset4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
