Michel Py wrote : When did you write this ? I read it before, just can't remember how long ago.
William Herrin wrote : 2007. Half of IPv6's lifetime ago. It came out of an ARIN PPML thread
On one side of the argument, folks saying that the need to manage two configurations impairs IPv6's deployment. On the other, an individual whose thesis was the IPv6 could not have been designed to be backwards compatible with IPv4 in a way that required no new configuration, just incremental, backward-compatible software upgrades.
Why did you choose this route, instead of encapsulating the packet with
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:32 PM Michel Py <michel.py@tsisemi.com> wrote: titled "The myth of IPv6-IPv4 interoperation." the extended address into an IPv4 packet ? I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in theory, would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no configuration changes or other operator intervention. If I couldn't do that, my debate opponent was right -- a greenfield approach to IPv6 made more sense despite the deployment challenge. Map-encap, where you select a decapsulator (consult the map) and then send a tunneled packet (encapsulated) does some cool stuff, but it's a pretty significant change to the network architecture. Definitely not configuration-free. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/