Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ole Troan]

Mikael,

>> But that's "better value" by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.
> 
> Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't have +P, so for instance my corporate VPN doesn't work because for some reason it uses GRE.
> 
> I think we're going to have to do some kind of A+P for protocols with port, and then do CGN (ds.lite) for everything else.

well, I think all applications will just end up having a P. if that means GRE over UDP or something else.
I would really have liked us to stop going down this path, but it seems like we're not going to be able to.

cheers,
Ole
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20150212/60a3dc73/attachment.bin