Re: [v4v6interim] Potential interoperability issue

On 4 okt 2008, at 22:37, Fred Baker wrote:

>> using a dual stack SMTP server as a forwarder makes much more sense.

> Gee, you make it sound as if I were arguing against dual stack. I'm  
> merely noting that dual stack isn't being deployed at the rate one  
> would hope for and that my customers are looking for a translation  
> solution.

The thing that we have to make explicit is that it's necessary to  
deploy the right solution to a given problem, one size never fits all.

Dual stack is not a good solution for clients for two reasons: it  
requires running both IP versions throughout a network, which  
increases cost and complexity, and it uses up just as many addresses  
as just running IPv4.

But for servers, dual stack is the best possible solution, because  
it's way simpler than the alternatives as receiving incoming sessions  
through translation is a big hurdle and the address use and network  
complexity aren't as bad because the number of servers and presumably,  
the number of places they're present are limited.

In the case of SMTP it's also easy to simply put a dual stack server  
in the path if you have an IPv6 server.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim