site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com (This issue should probably rather be discussed on for example ipv6-dev@lists.apple.com.) Hi, IPv6 seems to be today's Y2K issue: the problem seems so far away that only a handful of organisation bother spending their time dealing with the issue. I just have to answer this, since I really don't agree with that. Most major OS:es have supported it for a long time, and for a while even the big network equipment makers have support for it (outside of e.g. Japan, where the local network equipment makers have supported it for quite a while now, since several parts of the world outside US and the Western Europe need ipv6 and use it). I notice much in the way of software seems still to be IPv4 centric, even the new ones. I can't think of anything on Mac OS X, and therefore I assume in Darwin, that is not ipv6 savvy. Much open source software works quite well too. Are you talking about other vendors' software? In that case, sure, there is plenty. If you need ipv6 support in it, do yourself and the world a favor and tell their customer relations! :-) Other than QA, are there any development issues that would prevent people from making their software IPv6 ready? Well, since there are so many programs out there that work perfectly well with ipv6, it is hard to think of any real show stoppers. Are the code snippets available from Apple or elsewhere that show developers how to make hybrid IPv4/IPv6 software? Don't know, but there should be plenty on the web for the POSIX interfaces, and also the open source software from Apple/Darwin. For the higher level Apple specific interfaces, the format of those headers and addresses shouldn't matter, and any code snippets should be for any protocol. Also, what solutions are there to making IPv4 software work on an IPv6 centric LAN? I am thinking dual addresses or tunnels are probably the way to go, but I just want a second opinion. Of you are thinking about those v4<->v6 gateway ideas, they seem to have pretty much vanished now, and IMHO that is good and well. Of course, there still is 6to4 (run v6 with v4 as carrier), and most level4-and-up services as mail gateways, DNS servers, http proxies and similar services will just mix and match v4 and v6 (and possibly other protocols), and that is in many situations as much of a v4<->v6 gateway as you both need and want. /ragge _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... On 6 Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:06:32 -0400, Andr?-John Mas <ajmas@sympatico.ca> wrote: I don't know what you mean with "dual addresses", but "dual stack", or as you may call it, ipv4 and 6 in parallel, on those hosts that supports it, is a very common way to go. Just let the v4 only stuff stay v4 only and phase it out sooner or later. If your routers doesn't route (or bridge) ipv4, v4 won't traverse routers, and if you want it routed (or bridged) anyway you will have to set up routers (or bridges), with or without tunnels depending on the situation. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com