> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Let's assume ... that a large part of the Internet is going to
>> continue to be IPv4-only. So, what's the functional difference between:
>> - A host which has an IPv6 only address, which it cannot use .. 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
>> .. to comunicate directly with other IPv4 hosts out on the global
>> Internet.
> that the former can communicate with all other nodes with globally
> reachable IPv6 addresses, without having to borrow a global IPv4
> address to do so?
> ... but it *is* a functional difference, and that was what you asked
> for, Noel....
That an IPv6 host could communicate with other IPv6 hosts without use of a
borrowed IPv4 address (assuming contiguous IPv6 packet tranmission
connectivity of some sort) is (or ought to be) obvious - but unrelated to the
point I was making with my rhetorical question.
The point of said question being, as you are no doubt aware, to shed light on
the exact question you posed: "whether [there] is a *significant* functional
difference". I too left it (and will leave it now) as an exercise for the
reader to figure out.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf