----- Original Message -----
> From: "River Tarnell" <r.tarn...@ieee.org>
> Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "River Tarnell" <r.tarn...@ieee.org>
> >> As long as the proxy supports IPv6, it can continue to talk to
> >> Apache
> >> via IPv4; since WMF's internal network uses RFC1918 addresses, it
> >> won't be affected by IPv4 exhaustion.
> >It might
>
> No, it won't. The internal network IPs (which are used for
> communication between the proxy and the back-end Apache) are not
> publicly visible and are completely inconsequential to users.
>
> >how would a 6to4NAT affect blocking?
>
> ISP NATs are a separate issue, and might be interesting; if nothing
> else, as one reason (however small) for ISPs to provide IPv6 to end
> users. ("Help! I can't edit Wikipedia because my ISP's CGNAT pool was
> blocked!".)
You misunderstood me.
If we NAT between the squids and the apaches, will that adversely affect
the ability of MW to *know* the outside site's IP address when that's v6?
You're not just changing addresses, you're changing address *families*;
is there a standard wrapper for the entire IPv4 address space into v6?
(I should know that, but I don't.)
> >His phrasing seemed a bit.. insufficiently clear, to me. That was me,
> >attempting to clarify.
>
> Okay. I feel your clarification was not very clear ;-)
>
> ARIN didn't issue any /8s today, IANA did. ARIN was one of the
> *recipients* of those /8s.
Acronym failure; sorry. Yes; Something-vaguely-resembling-IANA issued those
last 5 blocks, in keeping with a long-standing sunset policy.
Cheers,
-- jra
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
