On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > On 05/12/2012 03:11 AM, Thomas de Looff wrote: >> >> I don't think this is a good idea. I think we have to make step one and two >> at the same time. >> Or maybe start with step two, so you can assign public ip's to your VM when >> you are using basic networking. >> In my opinion the most imported thing is that the VM's it self have an >> public IPv6 connection. > > I have to agree with Thomas on this one. Only doing IPv6 to the outside and > doing IPv4 "inside" does not seem the best way to me. > > In some countries IPv4 is really becoming a problem. Yes, we'll using private > IP's for that internal communication, but I'd vote to come with a > implementation where IPv6 works up until the instance itself. > > The simplest way seems to begin with handing out IPv6 in basic networking, > use DHCPv6 for handing out IP's. >
Being focused on advanced networking myself, I'll limit my comments to that model. I really believe that the correct first phase would be to implement a dual stack for the virtual router (and / or whatever other network device the provider is using to act as a gateway), with IPv6 on the private network(s) being a second phase. If you think about it from a migration point of view, most systems are still designed around IPv4. The external connectivity being dual stack, but the internal side still supporting IPv4, is a very desirable deployment approach for users. -chip
