[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Sat May 21 17:52:05 CEST 2016
Gert Doering wrote: > Right - *but* it might be an interesting idea to turn around this discussion, > away from haggling about the last scraps, into being able to give more > useful guidance to LIRs. > > Like, > > - if you need to connect end-users, best practice is dual-stack with > native IPv6 and CGNAT IPv4 (it stinks, but gets the job done while > content is not IPv6 capable everyhwere) > > - if you run a data-center, run ipv6-only on the inside, and add > Tore-style NAT46 to give each service a single public IPv4 address > (insert pointer to RFC...) > > etc. > > While not truly *APWG* relevant, we could at least find out where the > highest pain is, and then throw the ball over to the IPv6 WG to provide > solutions :-) (totally IETF style). That sounds like an offer to write the document. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]