On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:32 PM Michel Py <michel...@tsisemi.com> wrote: > >> Michel Py wrote : > >> When did you write this ? I read it before, just can't remember how long ago. > > > William Herrin wrote : > > 2007. Half of IPv6's lifetime ago. It came out of an ARIN PPML thread titled "The myth of IPv6-IPv4 interoperation." > > On one side of the argument, folks saying that the need to manage two configurations impairs IPv6's deployment. > > On the other, an individual whose thesis was the IPv6 could not have been designed to be backwards compatible > > with IPv4 in a way that required no new configuration, just incremental, backward-compatible software upgrades. > > Why did you choose this route, instead of encapsulating the packet with the extended address into an IPv4 packet ?
I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in theory, would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no configuration changes or other operator intervention. If I couldn't do that, my debate opponent was right -- a greenfield approach to IPv6 made more sense despite the deployment challenge. Map-encap, where you select a decapsulator (consult the map) and then send a tunneled packet (encapsulated) does some cool stuff, but it's a pretty significant change to the network architecture. Definitely not configuration-free. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
