SV: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
evyncke at cisco.com
Thu Feb 12 19:59:18 CET 2015
Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To
mimick NAT44 ?
On 12/02/15 14:00, "Thomas Schäfer" <thomas at cis.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.taraldsen at telenor.com:
>>> This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers
>>> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite.
>>> have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow "teredo" over DS
>>> and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native IPv6.
>>> xbox is no good example for *wanting* IPv6.
>> Could you elaborate on the IPv6 issues for xbox? I was under the
>> that xbox works well with IPv6.
>It was last spring/summer. You can find it also in the archive of this
>xbox did not work at several (IPv6) providers. Some of them have patched
>their routers and found a solution with Microsoft (comcast).
>In other parts of the world, *the solution* was to allow teredo at an
>Because I don't own a xbox I haven't sniffed the network behaviour, but
>I observe some costumer portals (e.g. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone) and
>there are still problems, often related to IPv6. (can have other reasons
>too, like instability at all, Firewalls or something else)
More information about the ipv6-ops