Hi, > Op 21 mei 2016, om 17:52 heeft Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> het volgende > geschreven: > > 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.
Hans Petter just made a nice statement in the opening plenary. I'm taking this to the BCOP session this afternoon to see if we can write this down properly. Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
