[136709] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek J. Balling)
Fri Feb 4 09:05:21 2011
From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
In-Reply-To: <WQE8G0a2F$SNFA9t@perry.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:05:09 -0500
To: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> It isn't "change to", its "add IPv6".
>>=20
>> I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
>> where there is enough IPv4 addresses to meet the internal needs.
>> It's external communication which needs to switch to IPv6. Internal
>> communication just comes along for the ride.
>=20
> If people start supplying CPE that are running IPv6 on the outside and =
IPv4 NAT in the inside, then that would just fine, in the sense that the =
users (in this case including the self-administrators of these small =
enterprise networks) won't notice the difference.
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only =
internal host know what to do with an IPv6 AAAA record it gets from a =
DNS lookup?
Sure, I think we're a long way off from any "significant sites" being =
v6-only, but "6-outside-4-inside" CPE will cut those users off from =
6-only sites unless the NATing CPE is also doing some really, really, =
wonky DNS interception and proxying at the same time, and I don't =
*anyone* wants to see that....
D=
