V6 still not supported

John Levine johnl at iecc.com
Sun Mar 20 02:14:13 UTC 2022


It appears that Matt Hoppes <mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net> said:
>Just like with IPv6, there would be a transition period, but during that 
>time software updates would very easily bring equipment up to spec much 
>faster and quicker.
>
>Eventually, 192.168.0.1 would be represented (for example) as 
>0.0.0.0.192.168.0.1 (or something similar - I haven't really sketched 
>out the logistics on paper).

Sounds just like an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, which is ::ffff:192.168.0.1.
See RFC 1884, written in 1995, and the other RFCs which update it but don't
change this particular aspect.

What's the difference?

R's,
John


More information about the NANOG mailing list