Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard"

one of my assumptions is that it would be more likely that servers 
already have or could get stable IPv4 addresses, or at least were more 
likely to get the addresses than clients - the asymmetry being lots of 
clients and few servers.   Several folks have suggested that the 
remaining IPv4 addresses or at least portions of that space should be 
reserved for uses that encourage IPv6.  Giving an address to a 
dual-stack server so it can still be reached by IPv4 clients seems like 
a good use.  Requiring every new IPv6 subscriber to also have a unique 
IPv4 address would not be as "cost effective".

Of course, that doesn't take p2p into account where everyone is a 
server, but there should be other ways for those folks to find each other. 

Randy Bush wrote:
> Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
>   
>> yup.  I really meant to say "right now" and even for the near future,
>> don't we still expect most servers/applications to be dual-stack rather
>> than IPv6-only?  My point was there are more pressing problems to solve,
>> while it would be nice for all variations to work, some can be deferred.
>>
>> Randy Bush wrote:
>>     
>>>> "...folks I work with would like to see solutions in that space, but it
>>>> is certainly not a high priority.  For the foreseeable future, it does
>>>> not seem critical to enable an IPv4-only host to talk to an arbitrary
>>>> number of IPv6-only hosts/servers/applications.  There really aren't any
>>>> to worry about."
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> we hope there will be
>>>       
>
> i worry that, given history, services may not be able to easily get ipv4
> address space before the ietf process produces useful code.
>
> randy
>
>   

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  ed.jankiewicz@sri.com 

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim