In message <E4783BE7-33A8-46F3-B9BF-5273C82EE666@xxxxxxxxx>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pat rik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes: > On 28 maj 2010, at 21.39, Jari Arkko wrote: > > > ... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack > (full stop). > > Unfortunately on applications layer I do not see enough operational > experience/best practice/actual implementations that handle this in a > very good way. The number of people I talk with that are nervous the > cost for customer support will be higher(!) for dual stack situations > than IPv6 only. I.e. that there are some arguments in favor of "one day > simply give the client an IPv6 address only instead of an IPv4 address > only". And have any of those that say this tried: 1) tried dual stack 2) tried IPv6 only through NAT64 (NAT-PT) with a sample of customers or are they just talking without any reference points. There is a lot of legacy equipment that requires IPv4 for something (e.g Windows XP for DNS servers, NFS support, ...) so you can't go to IPv6 only on the local net. Dual-stack in one form or another will be with us for a long time on the local net. Runing dual stack internally without external IPv4 connectivity is just as bad as running dual stack internally without external IPv6 connectivity. You just don't want to go down that path. We are years away from being able to run IPv6 only networks locally. There is way too much software that is not IPv6 ready. Yes. I've tried to run IPv6 only. Real IPv6 only, IPv4 completely disabled in the OS. It wasn't fun. Mark > That I get the question, that people think in these terms, I think is > "interesting". > > Patrik -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf