3 ms·
In other words, your proposal establishes only not-IPv4<->not-IPv4 communication over an IPv4 tunnel, which is something actual IPv6 has had for decades? (Ther
by jcranmer 2y ago
In other words, your proposal establishes only not-IPv4<->not-IPv4 communication over an IPv4 tunnel, which is something actual IPv6 has had for decades?
(There's also the interesting question of how not-IPv4 addresses are supposed to get their not-IPv4 addresses if the entity they get their IP addresses from doesn't support not-IPv4.)
- jedberg 2y agoNo, it establishes a path for piecemeal upgrades to the infrastructure that is cross compatible with IPv4.
- jcranmer 2y agoI'm not seeing it... can you clearly explain specifically what scenarios your not-IPv4 deployment strategy enables that doesn't exist with IPv6 today? (If you're going to say "not-IPv4 local network with IPv4 ISP", then clearly explain how the not-IPv4 local network is supposed to get its not-IPv4 address, and why that is materially different from existing IPv6 tunnel options.)