Yahoo and IPv6
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sun May 15 16:00:02 UTC 2011
On May 15, 2011 8:28 AM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> On 5/15/2011 6:49 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> On May 14, 2011 9:30 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>> > 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.
> Ok, so you concede that NAT64 requires yet another device at the edge to
make the SIP phones work...
Don't think I have ever disagreed.
>> 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
> ...and we'll agree to disagree on this one (RTMFP)... and users will just
be ok with BitTorrent and Skype not working on the v6-only + NAT64 networks
you're building, I suppose?
Yep. I have a pretty good model of how most users use their phones. That
said, ipv6-only + nat64 only works well for most users (90+%). For the long
tail, ipv4 services are not going away.
I believe that the user should be allowed to select their address family
easily ... this is easy in the mobile world.
Most folks (web and email) should not care if they have ipv4 + nat44 or ipv6
+ nat64. For those that do care, there are pros and cons to both. I prefer
the latter since it brings back e2e and is a positive incentive for ipv6
> Matthew Kaufman
More information about the NANOG