3 ms·
> The difficulty in my experience stems from one thing and one thing only: you can almost never go full IPv6. You always have to dual stack IPv4/IPv6, and of co
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> The difficulty in my experience stems from one thing and one thing only: you can almost never go full IPv6. You always have to dual stack IPv4/IPv6, and of course IPv4 + IPv6 is always strictly more complicated than just IPv4.
But it isn't? I mean, yes, every machine that requires both v4 and v6 is more complicated than just v4, sure. But potentially, you can get away with not having everything double stacked. You can run all your application and infrastructure servers on IPv6 only, and only have a load balancer speak IPv4, for example--that way, you get most of the benefit of IPv6 with only very little extra effort required for double stacking.
- rstuart4133 7y ago> But it isn't? I mean, yes, every machine that requires both v4 and v6 is more complicated than just v4, sure. You don't need to do that. I've set up IPv6 only networks at conferences. If throw in a IPv6->IPv4 NAT (eg, tayga) the only machine that requires a dual stack is the router. We didn't have a single complaint about connectivity issues from over 500 delegates. Modern clients (phones, tablets, Mac's and so on) just slide seamlessly into an IPv6 environment without the user even being aware they are using IPv6.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y agoI am pretty sure that if I put all of the servers that I am involved with behind NAT64, the complaints would be instant because tons of stuff would break, from services running on those servers not being reachable via IPv4 to software running on those machines not supporting IPv6.