From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jun 25 15:23:13 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8780E15CF4E4 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:23:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2158F617 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:23:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id F046833C58; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:23:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: Mel Pilgrim Cc: Ultima , FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: IPv6-only network--is NAT64+DNS64 really this easy now? References: <5e24739b-bbd0-d94a-5b0e-53fdeba81245@bluerosetech.com> <19784363-6543-ccc1-b13f-5f1a67dc10d1@bluerosetech.com> Reply-To: FreeBSD Mailing List Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:23:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <19784363-6543-ccc1-b13f-5f1a67dc10d1@bluerosetech.com> (Mel Pilgrim's message of "Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:47:01 -0700") Message-ID: <44v9wtr8o9.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0D2158F617 X-Spamd-Bar: ++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [4.32 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.76)[0.755,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[ilk.org]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; REPLYTO_DOM_NEQ_FROM_DOM(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.55)[0.552,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: be-well.ilk.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.99)[0.990,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7922, ipnet:23.30.0.0/15, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.03)[ip: (0.11), ipnet: 23.30.0.0/15(0.08), asn: 7922(0.03), country: US(-0.06)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:23:13 -0000 Mel Pilgrim writes: > On 2019-06-24 19:33, Ultima wrote: >> Hello Mel, >> >> While it may be possible to have an IPv6 only environment, I don't >> think it is really viable. There are simply too many things that don't run >> on or have very limited support for IPv6 that it makes it very hard >> to drop IPv4 altogether and until something comes along forcing the >> move it likely won't happen for at least another decade at the minimum. > > Yes, that is why I wrote "Waving a hand at bug-hunting and > lamentations over the inertia of embedded systems designers". I'm an embedded system designer, and the system I develop works fine under IPv6. We say we don't support it, because we don't specifically test it, but a lot of the time the applications are1 actually running over IPv6 without anybody noticing. The Windows GUI pieces can't configure IPv6 addresses, but we really prefer running with link-local anyway.