Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 2:36 PM +0900 7/1/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >> > > Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have >>> > IPv6 at IETF meetings >>> >>> good luck. Until the ISPs and our corporate networks deploy it, we >>> can't go there. >> >> to use legacy protocol like IPv4 :-) you can use IPv6-to-IPv4 >> tranlators like NAT-PT or RFC3142. > > NAT-PT (RFC 2766) is being moved to Historic status. RFC 3142 is > Informational. Without a standards-track method for people to use IPv4, > changing a production network to IPv6 seems unwise. The thing to do before thinking of removing IPv4 connectivity is too look at which applications are actually using IPv4. NetFlow/sniffing etc can be used to determine these organization wide. Most likely you will come down to at least: - HTTP -> for which one can use a HTTP Proxy which does v4+v6 - SMTP -> for which one can use SMTP :) (does both v4+v6) - IMAP/POP -> let the app handle it In the end though one needs to have a machine somewhere which does both IPv4 and IPv6 and translates between them. But on the Application Protocol level, not by changing bits like NAT-PT does. I am not sure, but is there not a draft/rfc/paper which details something like "Common application migration path from IPv4 to IPv6"? It is now I guess all cluttered all over the place. Maybe a Wikipedia article would be more appropriate, outlining which protocols can be resolved in way X and/or Y. This also allows everything to be in a central place which pointers to the programs that can do this too. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf