In message <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Franck Martin writes: > > I think it is time to move to the next level of IPv6 deployment. There are several "next level" alternatives when moving on from dual stack native IPv4 + native IPv6. There is: (1) native IPv6 + RFC 1918 (single NAT) (2) native IPv6 + RFC 6598 + RFC 1918 (double NAT) (3) dual stack lite (network) (4) dual stack lite (host mode) (5) MAP-* (6) 464XLAT + RFC 1918 (7) DNS64/NAT64 Now if we want to simulate a IPv6 only access network then the choices above drop. > Ideally the IETF WiFi network should now only provide the following 2 network > s: > 1)IPv6-only > 2)IPv6-only with NAT64 Somehow the IETF has been brain washed into thinking than DNS64/NAT64 is actually the best solution. It really is a total piece if garbage and should be made historic. It breaks DNSSEC. It requires that DNS recursive server accept answers from broken authoritative servers. It doesn't prevent PMTU issues. It doesn't actually have the reported property that you can tell when you can turn it off. It makes the network less robust as you cut off IPv4 fallback if the IPv6 path / servers are broken when both are offered. > The later should be the default network. Something other than native IPv4 + native IPv6 should be the default network. DNS64/NAT64 is really the worst choice that could be made. > However you would say, well some stuff will break, some non technical people > will use the IETF network and may have a bad experience, etc... > > So to be conservative but at the same time futurist and like it was done a > few years back, why not create again an IPv4 outage of a few hours where the > above 2 networks would be the only networks available? > > Depending on results, this outage could be expanded to a full day at the > following meeting, until the IPv4 network is totally removed from the WiFi? -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx