<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/Sep/15 13:04, Andrew Alston wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AMSPR03MB5340E5F109C6A97E2E354BBEE570@AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">V6
is coming, there is no doubt about it. If we don’t deploy
it, we’re gonna be in trouble. NAT is not a sustainable
solution, never has been, never will be, and the world is
running out of v4. But until there is what I refer to as
protocol parity, the deployment will be hampered, and that
protocol parity is still (sadly) very very far away. Right
now, no matter how much you want to, you still have to build
your v6 in a provider environment ON TOP of your v4, and you
have to be VERY careful with your hardware purchasing
decisions if you wish to avoid a situation where you will be
stuck in this scenario for the long haul.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">(Please
don’t mistake what I am saying by the way, such things
should not stop the deployment of V6 totally, and if you
have to build v6 on top of v4 right now, its in your
interests to do so, and that is what my employer has done, I
am merely stating that it would make the case so much
stronger if the protocols actually had parity in the
functionality)</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think it is necessary to lay IPv6 over IPv4, unless you're
providing 6-in-4 services or some such.<br>
<br>
We run native IPv6 across the board, and they pretty much run ships
in the night. IPv4 does what it does, IPv6 does what it does. They
don't intersect in any way.<br>
<br>
Agree that the lack of MPLS parity between IPv4 and IPv6 makes it
difficult to do away with IPv4 entirely, but this is a specific
use-case which goes above and beyond the basics of rolling out IPv6,
IMHO.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>