--- 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/