Joe Provo wrote:
This is highly amusing, as for myself and many folks the experience of these 'other protocols', when trying to run in open, scalable, and commercially-viable deployments, was to encapsulate in IP(v4) at the LAN/WAN boundary. It is no wonder that is the natural reaction to IPv6 by those who have survived and been successful with such operational simplicity.
There is nothing preventing you from doing the same thing again, ... except oh yea, lack of addresses and the bloating routing table as ever smaller address blocks are traded on eBay. Seriously, you could easily do the same thing by encapsulating IPv4 over IPv6. One might even consider using one /64 for internal IPv4 routes (embedding the IPv4 as the next 32 bits), then another /64 for each IPv4 peer, to reduce the number of IPv6 routes you need to carry everywhere. At the edges where it matters there would be a /96 routing entry, but even if all of the /96 prefixes were enumerated everywhere the table would be the same size as the IPv4 one would have been. Tony