[governance] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing

[McTim]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
<bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> On 2/21/08, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There won't be A remedy. the 2 protocols were never designed to be
>  "interoperable".  There are a variety of "remedies" that will allow v4
> hosts to communicate with v6 hosts and vice versa.
>
> Can anyone explain why those who designed IPV6 did not think about the
> transition path and the necessary interoperability between both protocols ?

They did think about the transition path:

http://nislab.bu.edu/sc546/sc441Spring2003/ipv6/transition.htm

in order to "Deploy more recent technologies" listed here:

http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipv6/

IPv6 packet design HAD to be different from IPv4 packet design, hence,
lack of backwards compatibility.

Don't worry, the sky is not falling, the Internet will not come
crashing to a halt, as some are suggesting.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance