In message <CAB2RJyiqqHjuAffprc0UbBgjo1hNSfp3SeqKooqb9didb5svvw@mail.gmail.com>, Todd Underwood writes:
I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's naive and ignorant in a genius way.
Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be properly done.
This was harder but not impossible. We just chose badly for decades and now we have NAT *and* a dumb migration.
Oh well.
T
That sounds like only using 6to4 addresses until the entire internet supports IPv6. Unfortunately there were NEVER enough IPv4 addresses to actually do that. We were effectively out of IPv4 addresses before we started. Add to that no one wanted to run 6to4 relays. For the asn32 strategy to work every IPv6 capable router needed to be a 6to4 relay and to perform encapsulation / decapsulation depending upon whether the next hop supported IPv6 or not. Mark
On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <mcn4@leicester.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote:
it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet).
Would be really interesting to know how you would propose squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has available to save having to move to this new incompatible format.
:-)
Matthew
-- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4@le.ac.uk>
Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp@le.ac.uk>
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org