upvote

points

by Alifatisk8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Sesse__6 hours ago|
next
[-]
More like, the point is to facilitate turning off IPv4. It's much nicer to manage a single-stacked backbone, but you still need IPv4 out in the edges somehow (for many cases, anyway). I guess this is another way to do that.

Heck, I would be happy if I could remove some IPv4 linknets from my IS-IS, myself, and just route using IPv6 link-local nexthops…

reply
upvoteby throw0101c5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> I guess the point with this to facilitate usage of IPv6.

See §6, "Usage Examples": IPv4 over IPv6 Core, IPv4 VPN Unicast over IPv6 Core, IPv4 VPN Multicast over IPv6 Core.

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8950#name-usage-exa...

So it's to facilitate legacy IPv4 usage when the rest of your infrastructure is IPv6.

reply
upvoteby simoncion7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The Abstract and Introduction sections of the RFC [0] explain what the point of this is. The "Changes Compared to RFC 5549" section is especially good reading, as it both alerts you to the fact that this is an update to a seventeen year old RFC and explains what changed in the update.

[0] <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8950>

reply
upvoteby Polizeiposaune6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It's to facilitate use of IPv4 in an IPv6-mostly network.
reply
upvoteby miyuru6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Multiple ISPs in my country have already deployed IPv6 with NAT64 support, and with CLAT support now available, I think IPv6-only networks will be the next step for most ISPs.
reply
upvoteby yayachiken6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
IPv6 mostly (RFC 8925) is a rather nice migration option.

Modern operating systems will gladly do CLAT, and old operating systems (or fussy users) can still get their IPv4 by just ignoring the new DHCPv4 option. But admins can finally stop keeping an IPv4 around for every potential client as most applications and users really don't care.

reply
upvoteby ianburrell5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There is also MAP-T which basically does CGNAT with IPv6-only provider network. The local network gets IPv4, the router translates to IPv6 which goes to stateless IPv4 NAT proxy. The advantage is that the proxy is stateless unlike CGNAT. The downside is requires custom code on the router.
reply
upvoteby q3k6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It's also just nice to not need numbered point-to-point links (ie. just use IPv6 LL).

(this is one of those things that's really magical with OSPv3 - it just runs on IPv6 LL addresses, no need to set anything up other than set the link to be within some area and it just works! well, as much as they do with OSPF anyway.)

reply
upvoteby Polizeiposaune2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
A router still needs a non-link-local address in order to be able to send ICMP errors off-link -- which you're going to want if you want sensible output from traceroute..
reply
upvoteby frantathefranta2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There is an RFC for ICMP extensions that fix this, RFC 5837.
reply