On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 18:58 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > 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). But in a big network you don't want to use that as you want to be able to manage it and provide some extra settings, eg routing preferences and dns servers. There is actually not much of a difference in setting up a DHCP or an RA server, both still require one to install the software or to enable it. > 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). You can do the same with IPv4. The fact that you say you are scripting is already configuring, thus removes the whole idea of RA in the first place. > > 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. Not true, one doubles the pain as suddenly you have to manage 2 separate systems, update 2 firewall sets, watch both of them, update both of them etc. It's the same as having 1 server to watch, or 2 seperate ones: double the trouble. > > > 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. But you did write it. Rephrase please what you did intend to write. > > > 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. You misread it the RFC, which is not a IETF STD (standard) btw. RFC3493 only specifies the API. The section you refer to states that the API _SHOULD_ support IPv4 mapped/compat addresses. A 'SHOULD' is not mandatory. Next to that even if it does support this, which is dead easy as one only has to parse a bit, there is no reason why the host must have an IPv4 stack as the packets can simply be sent onto the wire. A gateway can there handle the conversion to 'real' IPv4. This gateway indeed does have to be dualstacked. Also, if you are saying that it has supports everything to be IPv6 compliant, then there are not many IPv6 compliant machines on this planet, as most do not do IPv6 IPSEC. > > > 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. Then what are you talking/writing 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. Dual-stack is the 'easiest' way from one perspective, but that doesn't mean that there are no others. Many IPv6 systems are using tunnels over IPv4 at the moment anyway, this is effectively the same as translating it. I can at the moment build an IPv6-only host, connect it to my network at home, or any other place that has DHCPv6 or RA+self-configged-DNS. It will then nicely browse all IPv4 websites with http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net The same application proxy trick can be installed easily and quickly using TRT and a number of other methods. Much easier than having double IP addresses on all the hosts and managing all of that. But it all depends on perspective and applicability. Which is also the reason why there are so many transition mechanisms, as not all of them are useful/possible/acceptable everywhere. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part