Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newscaster-1.mcast.net!cs.tu-berlin.de!loewis From: loewis@cs.tu-berlin.de (Martin v.Loewis) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: IPv6 for FreeBSD Date: 28 Sep 1996 14:04:52 GMT Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Lines: 40 Message-ID: <52jba4$6fc@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <199609231719.RAA24685@email.croughton.af.mil> <slrn54djfg.s90.olsenc@misha.ee.washington.edu> <32481DBC.1D5E@603cs.croughton.af.mil> <32487A0D.3ECFB217@lambert.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: cent.cs.tu-berlin.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In article <32487A0D.3ECFB217@lambert.org>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote: >I think it's pretty obvious that you could two-stage addressing >to get them to interoperate: give out the exact same addressing >under IPv6 as IPv4, with a "special" value for the remainder of >the tuples. Once the transition is complete, make the legacy >space illegal and reassign adresses. Yes, that is the plan: Each IPv4 host has automatically an IPv6 address with all leading zeroes. I don't think there is a plan to make them invalid some day, though. This does not solve the problem of interoperability, though: An IPv6 host sending IPv6 packets cannot talk to an IPv4 host. The two options are dual-stacked machines or protocol translators. The other issue, of course, is what you do when you run out of IPv4 space eventually: Hosts that get IPv6 addresses with no IPv4 equivalents are unreachable from IPv4 host regardless. >One major problem with deploying IPv6 is that the .COM, .EDU, etc. >address space is rather crowded; Aren't we confusing IP name space and domain name space, here? There are two IPv6 related issues that I'm aware of, one is the extension for IPv6 (the AAAA record), the other one is the issue of reverse lookups, I believe there is an RFC for that. I understand the load on the .COM name servers is small compared to the load for reverse lookup; also, you can probably share the load among more servers, too. >it's about time to pick another >system that breaks up the name space by primary business. I rather like the idea of using countries as top-level domains, the .US server can probably take some more entries. I don't accept the argument of multi-national companies (or how does multi-national universities sound): A hardware store that primarily operates in Ohio is not a multi-national company. Regards, Martin