> From: Randy Bush > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:27 PM > To: Joe Abley > Cc: NANOG Operators' Group > Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6 > > > It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose > > solution to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why > > people keep fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to > be > > working towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack > > environment. There's no point worrying about v6-only operations if we > > can't get dual-stack working reliably. > > facile but fallacious fanboyism > > o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out > of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well > better be able to stand on its own. > > o if ipv6 can not stand on its own, then dual-stack is a joke that > will be very un-funny very shortly, as one partner in the marriage > is a dummy. > > randy
Dual stack isn't always the best approach. For networks that pass a large amount of traffic to a relatively small number of destinations, NAT64/DNS64 on a native v6 platform might be a better migration approach. If 90% of your traffic is v6, it is probably less trouble to use NAT64/DNS64 to reach that 10% than it is to dual-stack. Networks such as the sort described above would be expected to see the majority of their traffic migrate very quickly to v6 once only a few remote networks are v6 capable. This is a case where the pain is front-loaded. The amount of NAT64/DNS64 required to support such a topology is great at first, then quickly steps down as the destinations exchanging the most traffic become v6 capable, and then gradually tails off as the outliers catch up. G
