I believe that using a gateway or a translation device for ipv6-ipv4 just gives people an excuse to ignore ipv6. I really do believe that if ipv6 is to go full scale we have to jump in with everything ipv6 only or ipv4 the intermediate will just postpone the inevitable.
Take that from experience, give the suits an out and they will take it rather than taking the advised path which may cost more now but less down the road when you have to pry it out of people to abandon the translation servers. Manolo Chris L. Morrow wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> There are many things in Vista, and hopefully more to come, which prefer >> IPv6 for peer-to-peer. And even if the ISPs don't offer IPv6 at all, hosts >> use 6to4 or Teredo to automatically provide the required IPv6 connectivity. >> > > is there a global-ipv6 -> terado gateway in existence yet? If not... it's > not ipv6 connectivity. It's nat-traversal to a 'private' network which > happens to use ipv6 addressing. Things like 6to4 won't really scale as a > solution either :( if comcast's 20m clients wake up and 6to4 tunnel > tomorrow someone's 6to4 tunnel server is going to be in big trouble :( > (same for the 7.5m verizon dsl customers, which reminds me I need to get > back to playing some more with a 6to4 gateway again) > > Anyway, Terado had always seemed like a nice solution to not the ipv6 > transition problem. > >
