Re: [GLOBAL-V6] IPV4 to IPv6 migration

[Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>]

On 6/3/08 5:51 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> But it's also certainly true that many applications don't
> contain this logic, and do need to be manually restarted after
> an IP(v6) prefix becomes unreachable. I'm sorry, but I don't see
> how that is worse than what we live with today, with unpredictable
> application failures due to loss of NAT state. At least IPv6
> prefix changes can be planned, and announced to users like any
> other planned maintenance.
> 
>    Brian

No worse, no better.
IPv6: 96 more bits, no magic... But we *need* those bits!

   - Alain.