In an IPv6 future, how will you solve IPv4 connectivity?

Erik Kline ek at
Mon Oct 11 21:56:00 CEST 2010

On 11 October 2010 09:49, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at> wrote:
> On 10/10/2010 11:42 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>> El 11/10/10 7:15, Ted Mittelstaedt escribió:
>>> I really see very little point in fielding a proxy server that will
>>> allow a IPv6-only customer to surf the IPv4 Internet - if they can
>>> do IPv6 then they can dual-stack. I may do this though if we have
>>> early adopters that demand IPv6 only.
>> Right, the requests of some of these early adopters was what triggered
>> the work on NAT64 on the IETF.
>> The rationale, as i understood it, is that they don't want to have to
>> pay the cost of managing both a v4 and a v6 network.
> That is the same logic that Novell used to try to push that silly product of
> theirs that allowed you to run a "pure IPX" network.  It
> didn't last, and neither will NAT64 if that is the rationale behind
> selling it.

As someone who attended the interim IPv6 IETF meeting in Montreal in
October 2008 where much of this was discussed, I can say that my
motivation was more about enabling IPv6-only networks to be deployed
without having to pay an IPv4 deployment tax.  I felt it was important
for an organization to be able to move forward and deploy an all IPv6
network if it wanted, and only worry about the translation to IPv4 at
the edge, to the extent practical, similar to most (non-residential,
and I suppose non-colo) IPv4 deployments today.

You seem to be drawing an analogy between IPv6 and IPX.  I suppose
only time will tell.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list