8
IPv4 and IPv6 are two different protocols. They are not interchangeable without a lot of work.
So if you want to talk to v4 devices you run v4. If you want to talk to v6 devices you run v6. Most of the time, you run both.
4
IPv4 and IPv6 are separate protocols. They can't inter work without some form of translation mechanism.
The original idea of the IPv6 proponents was that we would all move to dual stack running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. Then once everything was dual stack, IPv4 could be phased out.
The problem is that plan just isn't attractive from an economic perspective. ...
3
When capturing raw data from a link, is it even possible to find a vrf value, or a route-target ?
A VRF is meaningful only to a router, so once the data leaves the router the question becomes meaningless.
Route targets are attributes of routing information, not data. MPLS packets don’t contain that information.
You can capture the MPLS labels and determine ...
3
An IPv6 address is useless when there's an IPv4-only partner that needs to connect - they are separate protocols and there's no connectivity between them.
Still, IPv4 is the only protocol allowing a server to offer services to everyone - even users with IPv6 primarily still have some IPv4 connectivity (e.g. DS-Lite), but not vice versa. That is only going to ...
1
progress seems throttled because companies still want to charge for IPs and don't want to address that there is no IP starvation in IPv6 (yet).
TL/DR: ISPs have a valid reason to charge from IP addressing. The reason behind slow adaptation is money, but profiting of the IP address charges is a tiny minuscule factor in the equation.
As long as there's no ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible