Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-10-05 09:12, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits...
>
> - Ralph
>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> > Regarding transition:
> >
> > On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case of IPv6, very 
> > > little
> > > attention was paid to facilitating transition by maximizing 
> > > interoperability
> > > with the IPv4 installed base.
> > Dave, I have to agree with you in this regard.  We may have achieved 
> > neither
> > significant new capabilities because IPv6 ~= IPv6+more_bits, nor ease of
> > transition because transition wasn't thoroughly evaluated early on in
> > the design process...

Ralph, that last assertion simply isn't true. Migration/transition/
co-existence was on the radar screen right from the start. The dual
stack model was chosen explicitly to allow for co-existence, and in
particular so that dual stack servers can serve both IPv4 and IPv6
clients, and that is running code.

There's a fundamental difficulty in having IPvX-only clients working
with IPvY-only servers except via application-level relays. It isn't
a consequence of design details of v4 and v6. I'm sure we could
have done better, but this was very definitely thought about.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf