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

Tim Chown tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tue Feb 17 10:19:02 CET 2015

> On 13 Feb 2015, at 15:49, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and would improve e.g. internet gaming.

Right, and a gamer will want to use something that makes gaming easier and more reliable, and not care whether it’s IPv4 NAT or IPv22. Gamers are already quite aware of issues like port forwarding, and various classes of NATs. They might not understand what they are, but they know certain configurations are required.

I don’t know which ISPs are using the filtering models that have been presented in the IETF, like RFC6092 and draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security-01. The snag of course  is that addressability and reachability are not the same. I would assume RFC6887 is the IETF approved approach to firewall traversal for IPv6 where the firewall isn’t open.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list