Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large part
of the Internet is going to continue to be IPv4-only.
No, what is conceded is that a large part of the Internet will continue
to be IPv4 only *for a number of years*. Slightly different statement.
> So, what's the
> functional difference between:
- A host which has an IPv6 only address, which it cannot use (without
"borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with IPv4-only
hosts out on the global Internet.
- A host which has an IPv4 local-only address, which it cannot use (without
"borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with other IPv4
hosts out on the global Internet.
Not much, in terms of available applications. But an IPv6 host which only
wants to talk to other IPv6 hosts can perfectly well do so over the IPv4
network, and it can talk to dual stack servers over the IPv4 network. There
really is a creeping deployment model here. Technically, that is capable
of reducing IPv4 to a legacy. Whether it does so or not will be unclear
for a number of years. We are only ten years into the IPv6 adventure
(counting from the Toronto IETF). It's too soon to tell.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf