[ppml] those pesky users...

[Aaron Dewell]

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 13:34 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 	Frankly, I still think that we should have a protocol where there is
> an IPv6 /96 reserved (this isn't really a big deal, is it?) that  
> allows any
> network to attach to the v6 world via a bilingual gateway which has
> the ability to support v6-only, dual-stack, and v4-only interfaces.
> 
> 	That way, all v4 addresses could simply be encapsulated into
> that /96 prefix in the v6 world (yes, the v6 backbone would be carrying
> the entire v4 routing table as specifics of that /96, so what... They  
> wouldn't
> have to still carry it as a separate v4 table the way it is today).
> 
> 	This would mean that v4 hosts would still have the same ability
> to reach v4 hosts that they have today, and, v6 to v4 connectivity
> would be nearly transparent for the v6 users.

I thought this was originally planned and implemented as 
::<v4-dotted quad>?  The so-called "IPv4 compatibility address."

Perhaps I'm behind the times and that got scrapped along the way...

Aaron