Hi, On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:05:16AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Roger Jørgensen wrote: > > Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter? > > Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes? > > [x] all of the above, and more. > > This question isn't relevant as it seems - lots of organisations have > their needs and the RIPE NCC cannot and should not be arbiter of whose > need is greatest or should take precedence.
Right - *but* it might be an interesting idea to turn around this discussion,
away from haggling about the last scraps, into being able to give more
useful guidance to LIRs.
Like,
- if you need to connect end-users, best practice is dual-stack with
native IPv6 and CGNAT IPv4 (it stinks, but gets the job done while
content is not IPv6 capable everyhwere)
- if you run a data-center, run ipv6-only on the inside, and add
Tore-style NAT46 to give each service a single public IPv4 address
(insert pointer to RFC...)
etc.
While not truly *APWG* relevant, we could at least find out where the
highest pain is, and then throw the ball over to the IPv6 WG to provide
solutions :-) (totally IETF style).
Gert
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
