IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]

Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> Mon, 27 December 2010 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <remi.despres@free.fr>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E863A6873 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:25:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.205, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5A+19wwbh7vi for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp21.services.sfr.fr (smtp21.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623DA3A686E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2113.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 521C9700008A; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:27:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.20] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2113.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C62467000093; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:27:06 +0100 (CET)
X-SFR-UUID: 20101227082706811.C62467000093@msfrf2113.sfr.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <1BE0653B-18CA-4042-AEDF-E78DA97652EF@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:27:05 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9BC4FCB1-AF71-496A-98CD-A7EB244D7571@free.fr>
References: <C93AEB5D.1708D%hesham@elevatemobile.com> <1BE0653B-18CA-4042-AEDF-E78DA97652EF@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: v6ops v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>, Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 08:25:05 -0000

Le 24 déc. 2010 à 15:03, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> ... The perception that turning on v6 breaks things is a huge source of resistance to deployment of v6.

Agreed.

That's why we should try to build up awareness that those who having native IPv6 addresses today are happy users of their operational dual-stacks.

Regards,
RD

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status