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

[Eric Vyncke (evyncke)]

Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To
mimick NAT44 ?

-éric

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
>>>mostly
>>> demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite.
>>>They
>>> 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
>>impresion
>> that xbox works well with IPv6.
>
>It was last spring/summer. You can find it also in the archive of this
>list.
>
>In short:
>
>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
>IPv6-Access.
>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)
>
>
>Thomas
>