>> But the rub is that every node of that IPv6-only core network (in this >> vision) nevertheless must know about IPv4 routing. [...] In other >> words, the draft does not envision deployment in an IPv6-only network of >> IPv6-only routers.
> You're entirely right. We're assuming a situation in which essentially > all routers implement IPv6, but some networks still haven't deployed IPv6 > addresses. I think it fairly uncontroversial that that's the situation > we're in today. Sorry, brain fart. That's what happens when you try to catch up on e-mail while having a fever. We are assuming that all routers implement both v4 and v6, which we believe is the case today. We want to simplify the administrative overhead of deploying both address families by allowing the administrator to only assign IPv6 and get IPv4 for free. At least one author believes that this might encourage wider adoption of IPv6, since it's hopefully more attractive to deploy IPv6 and get IPv4 for free than to deploy just IPv4. >> How many networks are there like this, really? There are few pure IPv6 networks, I believe. The technique is applicable to new networks, where without v4-via-v6 the administrator might be tempted to deploy IPv4 and forego IPv6. The rest of my reply is hopefully correct. Sorry again. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
