[ga] Fw: "...you should have voted for...a lot of years ago..."

["Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>
To: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>; "'D. J. Bernstein'" <djb@cr.yp.to>;
<ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:44 AM
Subject: "...you should have voted for...a lot of years ago..."


> From: "Jeroen Massar" jeroen@unfix.org
> "...you should have voted for...a lot of years ago..."
>
> The marketplace will now vote....
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> IPv16....One Better !!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>
> To: "'D. J. Bernstein'" <djb@cr.yp.to>; <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:48 AM
> Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: ipv6-smtp-requirement comments?
>
>
> > D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.to> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm asking why I ``SHOULD configure both A and AAAA records.''
> > A    : provides access for/to IPv4 and IPv6 aware hosts
> > AAAA : provides access for/to IPv6 hosts
> >
> > But.... the big but.. you _cannot_ specify an address like
> > 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f into an A.
> > IPv6 hosts _can_ communicate with IPv4 hosts with the ::ffff:<ipv4>
> > compatibility addresses only because
> > somewhere in between there is a dualstacked machine (actually some kind
> > of nat between IPv6 and IPv4).
> > Check http://research.microsoft.com/msripv6/napt.htm for that...
> >
> > The fact is that an IPv4 only host can never connect to an IPv6 only
> > node (as it simply doesn't know about IPv6 addressing).
> >
> > > This seems like a complete waste of time. Is it useful? If so, how? If
> > this
> > > massive renumbering is necessary for the IPv6 transition---which it
> > > isn't, according to the published transition plans---then why is it
> > only
> > > for MX servers, and why isn't it a MUST?
> > the MUST part comes from the: someday there will be IPv6 only hosts
> > which are MX and aren't IPv4 enabled thus from ones
> > IPv4 only host you will not be able to contact that part of the
> > IPv6-internet.
> >
> > Simple.
> >
> > Doesn't work:
> > IPv4-only ----> IPv6-only
> >
> > Works:
> > IPv6 -> IPv6
> > IPv6 -> IPv4 (with the help of napt and/or a dualstacked router
> > somewhere)
> >
> > Oh... there is way to access IPv6-only from IPv4-only nodes... use a
> > Socks server which is on a dualstacked box...
> > Then let the Socks server (version 5, as v4 doesn't do dns and specifies
> > IPv4 IP's in it's packets) do the resolving of the hostname and
> > relay/tunnel/translate the connection onto an IPv6 host where
> > possible...
> >
> > Greets,
> >  Jeroen
> >
> > PS: If you wanted a seamless IPv4 -> IPv? transition you should have
> > voted for ascii-nullterminated IP addresses a lot of years ago, but that
> > would also have solved the IP-address-'full'ness of today and make a
> > major beating to many routers...
> >
> >
> >
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html