3 ms·
"It gets worse. The IPv6 designers don't have a transition plan" This is either an old article or the author is not up to speed. Good example why you should da
by jsz0 17y ago
"It gets worse. The IPv6 designers don't have a transition plan"
This is either an old article or the author is not up to speed. Good example why you should date your articles. I met with Cisco a couple months ago and they detailed their IPV6 strategy to us from the service provider perspective. In short: They're throwing a bunch of different strategies at the problem to cover all the bases. It's not an elegant solution. More like brute force with a focus on preserving total interoperability. This stuff is already in the wild today on a small scale. It works. Comcast, COX, TWC, etc all have active deployments and are looking at large scale rollouts over the next year.
http://www.ict-partner.net/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/white_paper_c11-558744-00.html http://www.ict-partner.net/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps...
- loup-vaillant 17y agoThe article is dated, but not outdated. The page you linked to is clear: "IPv4 and IPv6 protocols are not directly compatible, and hence various techniques are necessary for their coexistence". If IPv6 were compatible with IPv4 in the first place, the "various techniques" wouldn't be necessary, and transition would have taken years, not decades.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Chronos 17y agoHow would you propose making IPv6 compatible with IPv4? Recall that every IPv4 application in the history of Berkeley Sockets has 32-bit address buffers hardcoded into the binary.
- loup-vaillant 17y agoHow this hard-coded size renders backward compatibility difficult?