----- Original Message -----
From: "River Tarnell" r.tarnell@IEEE.ORG
Jay Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "River Tarnell" r.tarnell@IEEE.ORG As long as the proxy supports IPv6, it can continue to talk to Apache via IPv4; since WMF's internal network uses RFC1918 addresses, it won't be affected by IPv4 exhaustion.
It might
No, it won't. The internal network IPs (which are used for communication between the proxy and the back-end Apache) are not publicly visible and are completely inconsequential to users.
how would a 6to4NAT affect blocking?
ISP NATs are a separate issue, and might be interesting; if nothing else, as one reason (however small) for ISPs to provide IPv6 to end users. ("Help! I can't edit Wikipedia because my ISP's CGNAT pool was blocked!".)
You misunderstood me.
If we NAT between the squids and the apaches, will that adversely affect the ability of MW to *know* the outside site's IP address when that's v6?
You're not just changing addresses, you're changing address *families*; is there a standard wrapper for the entire IPv4 address space into v6? (I should know that, but I don't.)
His phrasing seemed a bit.. insufficiently clear, to me. That was me, attempting to clarify.
Okay. I feel your clarification was not very clear ;-)
ARIN didn't issue any /8s today, IANA did. ARIN was one of the *recipients* of those /8s.
Acronym failure; sorry. Yes; Something-vaguely-resembling-IANA issued those last 5 blocks, in keeping with a long-standing sunset policy.
Cheers, -- jra