4 ms·
> So I don't bother with ipv6 - it's a toy. Since I can't edit my other comment: I don't agree with this. I agree with the challenges of v6 that wouldn't be th
by jcgl 16d ago
> So I don't bother with ipv6 - it's a toy.
Since I can't edit my other comment: I don't agree with this. I agree with the challenges of v6 that wouldn't be there if translation had been prioritized from the start, and with your characterization of DNS64 as a hack.
- iso1631 15d agoAt work I can't see being able to drop ipv4 for at least 20 years due to applications and hardware which still relies on ipv4 (I've got some endpoints which don't even support igmpv2!) I still haven't had a single failure for someone who can't reach an ipv4 endpoint. As such I see it as just a toy.
- jcgl 15d agoI'm not suggesting dropping v4 connectivity altogether. I'm suggesting migration to a v6-only core by providing IPv4 as a service via 464XLAT, IPv6-Mostly, or only offering IPv4 to select network segments using SIIT-DC-2xlat: https://nicmx.github.io/Jool/en/intro-xlat.html#siit-dc-dual-translation-mode https://nicmx.github.io/Jool/en/intro-xlat.html#siit-dc-dual...