Gert Doering wrote:
Right - *but* it might be an interesting idea to turn around this discussion, away from haggling about the last scraps, into being able to give more useful guidance to LIRs.
Like,
- if you need to connect end-users, best practice is dual-stack with native IPv6 and CGNAT IPv4 (it stinks, but gets the job done while content is not IPv6 capable everyhwere)
- if you run a data-center, run ipv6-only on the inside, and add Tore-style NAT46 to give each service a single public IPv4 address (insert pointer to RFC...)
etc.
While not truly *APWG* relevant, we could at least find out where the highest pain is, and then throw the ball over to the IPv6 WG to provide solutions :-) (totally IETF style).
That sounds like an offer to write the document. Nick