[afripv6-discuss] mukom.tamon@gmail.com has shared something withyou

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

The issue is that you can't control when all the networks in the world, when
all the applications, when all the services, will be IPv6-enabled.

So it is an utopia to think in many years that we are withdrawing IPv4.

I really want to encourage folks, if they want to avoid issues, to keep dual
stack (even with private IPv4 addresses and NAT), at least in the data
centers and local area networks (residential, enterprise, etc.), otherwise,
many applications will stop working. This is much better than for example
using NAT-PT, which is no longer supported by IETF. You can even drop IPv4
from your core network (if you're an ISP), if you have transition mechanisms
such as softwires which automatically are able to create end-to-end
IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels, but again, for this you still need IPv4 in the local
area networks.

Regards,
Jordi




> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Organization: Global Information Highway Ltd
> Reply-To: <ocl at gih.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:14:22 +0200
> To: IPv6 in Africa <afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net>, Jordi Palet Martínez
> <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Cc: <mohsen.souissi at nic.fr>
> Subject: Re: [afripv6-discuss] mukom.tamon at gmail.com has shared something
> withyou
> 
> "Mohsen Souissi" <mohsen.souissi at nic.fr> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 29 Sep, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> | Hi Mukom,
>> |
>> | As we insist in the trainings, we need to understand the difference
>> between
>> | migration and transition.
>> |
>> | We aren't doing a migration on IPv6, but a transition and coexistence.
>>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
> 
> [...]
> 
>> ==> If you choose to be picky on words, and I can understand that
>> especially when it comes to teachnig/educating, than you should and
>> ban "transition", "migration" and "switching" (which is used quite
>> often as well) and retain "integration" and "coexistence" (and maybe
>> others to come) ;-)
>> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Whilst short term objectives are integration and
> coexistence, the long term objectives are to get rid of IPv4 altogether.
> Coexistence introduces some weakness in the stability of the Internet, so
> the sooner we start the next phase, the better.
> IMHO, once IPv6 is in wide use, IPv4 will wither away quite naturally, a bit
> like horsedrawn carriages did when the carriage with a mounted explosion
> engine became widespread.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.