Re: [v4v6interim] Potential interoperability issue

IMHO, any server based application should first be approached by dual
stack in the server if at all possible. Only then should one look to
alternatives. I have been running this way in my lab for a number of
years, there are very few server based scenarios where this does not
work. 

-----Original Message-----
From: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:36 AM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: v4v6interim@ietf.org
Subject: 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
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim