Re: Ipv6 DNS and ipv4 host - Tranistion problem
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 17:56 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > A properly configured IPv6 network will not require as much work as is
> > the case for IPv4.
>
> Can you elaborate on this?
>
> Except for the fact that one will most likely get a /48, there really is
> not much of a difference in IPv4 versus IPv6.
>
> There exist DHCPv6 and DHCP (for IPv4), routing protocols are the same,
> DNS is the same. The only thing is that IPv6 addresses are longer and
> thus are more inconvienient to remember. For ther rest what will
> actually lighten the load?
DHCPv6 exists, but is not required for a fully-functional IPv6 setup on
the network level (you can use route advertisement instead).
For higher-level protocols, using an anycast IP for those things that
are really required in a network (such as the DNS server) will make it
possible to configure those statically on your client machines (which
you do by scripting it the first time, obviously).
> Note also that inplace prodedures for updating all IPv4 tools to also
> support IPv6 is not a lot of fun...
No; however, the pain of moving from IPv4 to dual-stack is not larger
than the pain of moving from IPv4 to IPv6-only systems.
> > Note that IPv6 requires a working IPv4 stack to be present in order to
> > function properly.
>
> Why would a host require IPv4? That for instance Linux 'design' doesn't
> allow it because IPC uses IPv4 in some cases doesn't mean one have to
> have IPv6 on all platforms.
I didn't say that. Don't be silly.
> > You can't set up an IPv6 host that cannot be assigned
> > an IPv4 address.
>
> Why not?
Because an operating system that supports IPv6 is required by the
relevant RFC documents to also support IPv4. If you find an operating
system that does support IPv6 with IPv4-support disabled, then they
violate several RFC documents. Such as RFC3493, section 3.7. Go read it.
There are more RFC documents that spell out the requirement of support
for both protocols; I'm too lazy to go and dig them all out for you, but
I'm sure you'll find them if you start looking. I know I did, last time
I tried.
> > Obviously that doesn't mean you can't set up a host
> > that has only an IPv6 address, but then that's something entirely
> > different.
>
> What is different between a host without IPv4 support and one without an
> IPv4 address (including loopbacks)?
There's no practical difference, indeed, but that's not even remotely
what I'm talking about.
[...]
> There are really a lot more transition mechanisms than dual-stack, check
> for instance:
>
> http://www.join.uni-muenster.de/Dokumente/Howtos/Howto_TRT.php?lang=en
>
> > The day IPv6 can reach about 75% of the net, your plan might be viable.
>
> Not if one arranges gates to the IPv4 networks using eg the above.
I thought we were talking about making things easier. Using a gateway
certainly is a possibility, but it hardly makes things easier.
--
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond
Reply to: