Gert Doering wrote: > 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).
That sounds like an offer to write the document. Nick
