Yahoo and IPv6
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sun May 15 13:49:43 UTC 2011
On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> On 5/14/2011 6:41 PM, Jima wrote:
>> On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>>> Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
>>>> nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.
>>> For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype,
>>> BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app using RTMFP to
>>> reach peers, sure.
>> 1. There are SIP phones that support IPv6, e.g.,
> Sure, but NAT64 doesn't let SIP phones on an IPv6-only network talk to SIP
phones on an IP4-only network.
Right, that is why we have SBC / b2bue for the cases we want to work.
>> 2. Exactly whose fault is it that RTMFP can't reach peers via IPv6?
(Granted, I'm not sure RTMFP is the best argument for your point anyway,
since apparently symmetric NAT monkey-wrenches it, too:
> RTMFP can reach peers via IPv6... but it can't talk between an IPv6-only
peer that is behind a NAT64 and an IPv4-only peer.
> And that would be the fault of NAT64, which for all of the applications I
mentioned (and more) made the seriously wrong assumption that every IPv4
address is looked up in a DNS server.
We have agreed to disagree on the value of this before. Sorry your not so
popular protocol is going the way of EGP .... it's just not fit for the
evolving internet and will be subject to natural deselction. I am sure you
will disagree with that and insist every end user must always support ipv4
because rtmfp is top of mind for so many users .... but we can leave it at
> Matthew Kaufman
More information about the NANOG