[Wiltshire] Fwd: Re: IPV6

[Simon Iremonger]

> The most imprtant thing he says is about compatibility addresses, this 
> had to be the case or it will all fall over. I will add further to the 
> early windows scare (MS cockup, they did know about IPV6) and remind you

I think this is an important oversight/confusion unfortuntaley.


The "compatibility address" is just used so an IPv6-socket-application
   can connect to IPv4 clients without also opening and IPv4-socket.

On-the-wire,  its' still IPv4 or IPv6 -- they do NOT normally
   interconnect.
If you run an IPv4 server it NEEDS to also have an IPv6 address if it is
   to be reachable from IPv6-only clients.  "compatibilty address" does
   not fix this ;-).  You can get translating load-balancers and stuff
   but... that gets 'interesting' ;-).

There are all sorts of messy tranlation mechanisms, but they shouldn't
   be relied up, in what locations, etc etc... argh...


> that those running very old red hat, debian, slackware etc, servers that 
> just sit in a corner and hum away will also need some attention.
;-).  Indeed!

> Guy

--Simon
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Wiltshire mailing list
Wiltshire at mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/wiltshire