Re: IPv6 & DNS

[David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>]

--- JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet () consulintel es>
wrote:
> But as said, IPv6 was designed having in mind a
> smooth transition including
> dual-stack. Nothing is wrong when IPv6 "alone"
> doesn't work today. Is like
> trying to use only gas in an engine that requires a
> mix of gas and oil. It
> is something wrong ? No, it is the way you try to
> use the engine, because
> was not designed that way !

The problem is that turning on v6, while requiring
that v4 continue to work means accepting the
limitations and security risks of both protocols. 
This is not a "transition" - this is another level of
indirection (c.f. RFC 1925).  A "transition" has an
end-state which is clearly defined, and we are only
just starting to ferret out the end-state with regard
to v6.

> In fact, I have not talked about public IPv4
> addresses at all ! As explained
> in another message, we are doing large IPv6-only
> deployments (5.000 sites).
> The "only" applies to the core and access network,
> but we keep
> net10+NAT+IPv6 in the LANs.

That's what you mean by "IPv6-only"?  When I talk
about IPv6-only, what I mean is "no other layer-3
protocols running: no IPv4, no Appletalk, no IPX,
etc."  

I get that there is rough consensus.  I'm waiting for
the running code.

-David Barak

David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/