IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [3gv6] Dual-stack approaches in general

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 03 December 2009 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 3gv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 3gv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF363A6893 for <3gv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:27:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ymK9SEhiFOjS for <3gv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DBA3A6822 for <3gv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEALKiFkurR7Hu/2dsb2JhbADAM5dngjWBfASBag
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,331,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="226906014"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2009 01:27:38 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-220.cisco.com [10.32.244.220]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB31Rc87007624; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 01:27:38 GMT
Message-Id: <E50AA004-5C58-4953-B668-5B340D4303BF@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: "<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C73C4B31.FD3%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:27:37 -0800
References: <C73C4B31.FD3%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: 3gv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [3gv6] Dual-stack approaches in general
X-BeenThere: 3gv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This mailing list is intended for discussions relating to the use of IPv6 in cellular networks." <3gv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/3gv6>, <mailto:3gv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/3gv6>
List-Post: <mailto:3gv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:3gv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/3gv6>, <mailto:3gv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:27:46 -0000

On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:49 PM, <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com 
 > wrote:

> DS can to a certain extent offer relief from the address exhaustion  
> issue if the majority of the apps on the host and servers were to  
> use IPv6. IPv4 would be used only for those applications which lag  
> behind in the transition to v6.

Well, yes; in general, RFC 4213 suggests turning on IPv6 in your IPv4  
network. The assumption is not that you're trying to do something  
about your IPv4 address space per se; it is that you are trying to  
replace your IPv4 service with IPv6 service, and it suggests that  
turning on IPv6 is the first thing you need to do to make that happen.  
Expect IPv6 to become a market requirement for applications when IPv6  
gets better service than IPv4, or some popular services are no longer  
accessible by IPv4.

As to applications, yes, of course. In point of fact, many  
applications have already been ported to IPv6 and operate just fine. I  
understand that Apple made a requirement that applications on the  
iPhone must be IPv6-capable, and as a result several tens of thousands  
of applications are in fact IPv6-capable.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email