Last time I heard/. had not moved to supporting IPv6 because of limitations in Slashcode. When I dug it turned out some of the Perl libraries used by Slashcode were not IPv6 ready and CPAN seems to dragging its feet when it comes to ensuring all its networking libraries are IPv6 ready - there certainly doesn't seem to be any concerted development effort to sort out these issues last I looked.
So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out?
At that point essentially anyone wanting a new block of IPv4 addresses for their domain is out of luck. In this case they are left with two choices:
- Move on to IPv6 for their servers
- Get someone else to host their services - with HTTP you can share an IP, but have a different name (requires virtual domains with the same server instance)
Both have limitations, since in the first scenario you are limited to IPv6 clients and in the second you are limited to what can be hosted.
In both scenarios you could get a single IPv4 address for you network and then just NAT the PCs.
As you can see the real limitation is not for those accessing services, but for those providing services. There is an extra issue that comes into play, for the the entity providing the online services: you will be forced to find an ISP who already has native IPv6 support or using and IPv6 tunnel.
Well it is probably more along the lines of buying a book on Amazon from Borders. I can understand why they did this, but I am not sure that it was the right move to make. I should be able to buy a book on Android from the Apple app store and a book on iOS from the Android market place. It could seem like a way of promoting competition, but it could also show that even Android users and developers prefer to use the iOS based devices for their reading - a nice little irony.
Beyond the $1 fee, Firewire chipsets are probably more expensive than the USB counter parts. I say this because Firewire controllers usually do the heavy lifting, while with USB this is delegated to the processor.
I'm sure China has done just as much innovation on those rails as the Soviets did with the Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4)
We could also cite how USA and Russia innovated rocket technology, thanks to the Germans. I am not saying this is any better or worse, what I am saying is that if you comb through history then you will probably see many more cases of technology ending up in other countries without some sort of 'due' being paid. While it is only fair to compensate the original inventor or innovator, there are limits to doing so.
That is true, for the most part. Also those home users having a modem/router solution provided by their ISP should see this fairly transparently, though people with their own router will need to contact the manufacturer or get a new one. Also, people with software firewalls will need to get the upgraded version with IPv6 support.
At the same time, I take the stance that as an IT professional it useful to at least have a basic understanding of IPv6, just so any TCP/IP applications I may be developing support it already.
As long as it is not the only place to buy applications for the Mac, then that's ok. We already have steam for games and that works well.
The issue I have with the app store on the iPhone/iPad is that if it falls into a category that doesn't meet the puritan standards, then you can't buy it. It would be nice to see a place for application that are API compliant, but don't fill some of the other check-boxes.
We hear plenty of people acting as if we can duct tape IPv4 for ever and plug their ears at the shear mention of IPv6. The truth is instead of spending energy trying to hold afloat a sinking ship, it may be time to start putting the gang-plank out to that shiny new boat that can take us the rest of the way. It doesn't make sense to wait for the boat to be sunk before jumping ship, since you will find yourself having deal with bigger issues. Then again overpopulation and lack of natural resources may have started world war three in a few years, so none of this is worth worrying about;)
For those of you that have already decided that its time to make the move, what steps have you put in place to ensure you get to IPv6 in one piece.
BTW Akamai is already working on upgrading its network to support IPv6 and have a target date of 2011. The admit that its going to be a tough challenge, but at least they have recognised it makes sense to start moving now, rather than later.
Add to that the referenced article was posted in 2007. Anything older than a year is probably out of the collective consciousness and the new article while being a dupe would probably news all over again:)
With GSM and CDMA being around so long already, I don't see why there's not already cheap, off the shelf, radios that support both formats the phone markers can just pick and put in there phones.
I doubt the problem is the technology and is more the licensing issues. Just take a look at the mobile litigation fest going on.
There is no such thing as 4G GSM. 4G is LTE, which is OFDMA (and based on CDMA). GSM is ancient 2G TDMA. Verizon will be CDMA (3G) and LTE (4G). Although it will use a SIM card, it will most definitely not use GSM.
You are mixing concepts and also letting yourself get lost in the marketing. GSM is a technology umbrella governed by the GSM Association. Traditionally when people talk about CDMA at a high level they are talking about Qualcomm CDMA, which is a protocol for mobile communication, which also happens to be using CDMA encoding. Since 3G GSM, WCDMA encoding schema has been incorporated, but this is not Qualcomm's solution.
In North America 3G and 4G had been used without context and originally talked about Qualcomm's technologies. To avoid confusion new terms were used to differentiate the GSM based solutions.
Some of the technologies which make up the GSM portfolio:
That's not exactly clear. Will the phone be unlocked? Will all carriers be using the same frequencies for 4G?
If you buy your phone contract free elsewhere it should be unlocked. Chances are not all carries will be using the same frequencies, so the phone will need to support them. One other bonus for Verizon, other than getting more phone selection at lower cost, is access to roaming customers.
In many way this is what will allow Verizon to get the iPhone. When the iPhone 5 comes out it is bound to support 4G, so even if Verizon is not an official partner, people will be able to use the phone there.
I have never been convinced that Apple would want to add CDMA capability, just for Verizon, because of the extra licensing costs and the fact Verizon had already announced that it was putting in place a 4G GSM network. I may still be wrong about Qualcomm-CDMA support being added (CDMA is part of GSM in the form of wave encoding, not protocol), though we will see.
When even just *one* person I deal with asks me if I can do IPv6, or offers a service that I need on IPv6, then I'll bring them back up quickly and accept the administrative needs. So far, it hasn't happened.
Sounds fair. The difference in your scenario is that you have done your homework and when the time comes it you know what to do to bring it back up. Most other people in IT either haven't planned for IPv6 or haven't done their homework.
The issues will get easier to deal with.
One thing that I encourage plenty of people to do is to write about their IPv6 experience and what they would do differently next time they implement and IPv6 network. The larger the knowledge base, the easier it will become for the next people jumping on the bandwagon.
Having IPv6 on your LAN doesn't mean you lose IPv4 connectivity. Both protocols can and do co-exist on your network. Hosts on my networks that are dual stacked IPv4/IPv6 include Windows XP, Windows 2000 (there was a developer pack a while back), Linux and MacOS X.
Originally when I first started playing with IPv6 on my network I took one of my MacOS X machines, got a subnet from Sixxs (tunnel broker) and installed Aiccu (their client software). With a little extra configuration to setup the machine to do router advertisements and make it act as router everything was up and running. All the machines that had IPv6 activated got themselves a routable IPv6 address and were able to connect to IPv6 web sites.
Later on I decided to buy myself an Apple Airport, which has IPv6 support and then simply enabled 6to4. Ideally I would have connected to Sixxs again, but there is a firmware issue when using PPPoE, that they have failed to fix thus far (if they want better advertising then they should have a longer firmware maintenance window).
Because of the limitation of the Apple Airport, I have been keeping my eyes open for alternative solutions. For me any viable solution needs to provide a GUI for configuration. OpenWRT and DD-WRT both have IPv6 support, but not from the UI last time I looked. The one that seems the most interesting is Tomato, which has a UI and is the one that a Canadian ISP known as Teksavvy is playing with (see here). Buffalo seems to have IPv6 in its firmware, but it is not a feature that is marketed, so I will need to try one out before going for it.
It should be noted that much of my knowledge on IPv6 has been garnered by spending time on the Sixxs.net forums and wiki.
For the most part once you have IPv6 installed on your network most people shouldn't notice. One thing to make sure is the router has a properly configured IPv6 firewall.
Quite honestly if you are using IP addresses to access everything, then you are doing something wrong. There are plenty of solutions for IP to name resolution, including:
- DNS
- Bonjour
- Samba
- Hosts file
There are others, but those are the ones I am aware of.
And if the issue is with neither the cable company nor the phone company offering IPv6 service, what next step do you recommend?
Turn to transitional solutions. You can already get an IPv6 tunnel via a tunnel broker, using 6to4 or Teredo (available standard on Windows 7 and available via Miredo on Linux, BSD and MacOS X) . Neither are ideal, but it is better than no solution at all. For a long time I have been using Sixxs as my tunnel broker, though there are others, such as Hurricane Electric.
If your router supports native IPv6 and IPv6 tunnels then it is a big plus. If you wish try experiment without the expenditure, then you can install a tunnel client on your computer. In all cases ensure you have a properly configured IPv6 firewall.
Once you have your IPv6 network up and running try connecting to http://ipv6.google.com/ or http://www.kame.net/ (you should see an animated turtle). Then you can start finding out which applications are IPv6 ready.
As long as whatever solution is transparent to the application, then that's what will make the most sense. If the applications are intranet only, then they could probably exist in their own IPv4 subnet with little regards for what is happening beyond their island. If they need internet connectivity then, they will probably still be okay for the next few years since existing IPv4 addresses won't vanish, they simply won't be able allocated anymore - I assume such applications will continue speaking to the same servers. We will have an IPv4 internet for a while after the world has moved to IPv6. Even a host which only knows how to speak IPv6 will probably still be able to speak to IPv4 hosts through IPv6/IPv4 bridges. See: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6IPv4AddressEmbedding.htm
This transition is not the first time is happened. For example companies who were using Novel Networks or IPX had to deal with migration to TCP/IP somehow.
Of course, you might not be ABLE to switch carriers. If Time Warner were to put me behind NAT, I'd be pretty much screwed. I might be able to switch to some form of wireless connection, but that might not even be any better.
That would suck, though look on the bright side, in a worst case scenario you could probably get an IPv6 capable router and then tunnel to an IPv6 PoP. Its far from ideal, but at least you wouldn't be totally stuck on Time Warner's island.
BTW Its worth noting that Comcast has already started IPv6 trials, though if your only ISP is TW, then it won't make much difference to you.
200K units per year is low, 40M laptops is huge, yet the iPad is truly baffling, since "Apple already revealed in July that it sold 3.27 million iPads in its first three months of availability":
While it will be interesting to see if the same momentum lasts through to the end of the year, it should be mentioned those are the sales of just one company. RIM gets it (they announced the PlayBook), as does Google (with Android [GingerBread] 3.0 apparently supporting tablets) and as do a number of other hardware manufacturers. Microsoft's attempt seems to be in the same ball park as what was wrong with Windows CE or Windows Mobile (whatever name it goes by). I must admit I am curious whether HP will actually make a WebOS based tablet.
p2. The transition to IPv6 is probably going to need some NAT64 and DNS64 magick at some point. Not everybody is going to be well-served by running dual-stack hosts and networks. I've heard that some mobile broadband providers are looking at various kinds of NAT tricks to keep IPv4 marginally functional for legacy applications on IPv6-only networks without resorting to expensive tunnel encapsulation mechanisms.
Have you actually done a count of the number of addressable devices IPv6 provides. There may well be a time when IPv6 needs to be NATed, but that is well into the future when systems will be ready for a 256bit network address. At this point IPv6 provides just what we need for the next century, and possibly more. Trying to get any more mileage out of IPv4 is like taking a dying horse and expecting it to walk 1000 miles. It may make it, but there are good chances it won't.
If companies are having to deal with legacy applications, then there is nothing stopping them from having IPv4 in the internal network and having an IPv6 proxy or bridge in front of it. For everything else it will be IPv6. If companies are making new software today that is not IPv6 capable, that intended to accessible on the internet, then they deserve to be out of business tomorrow.
at work we use NAT behind a whole public class B and it work great. But as a customer I would not put up with it. I want to act as a server not only a dumb host. So please stop the carrier grade nating madness.
I already need to either define a computer as DMZed or do port mapping, because of NAT. Just imagine the amount of head-scratching people will do when they find out there is another NAT in front of theirs preventing access to their subnet. If my ISP starts NATing, then its just confirmation that I need to switch to another provider.
Add to this how many more NAT workarounds we will need to have in software. We already have to deal with NAT busting solutions, now we will have to deal with double NAT busting solutions. Believe me, NAT was a workaround to a limitation and we shouldn't be using this workaround at any more levels than necessary.
There is only so much duct tape you can use before it is time to just accept you will have to install the new solution.
If IPv6 appears so hard, its because people keep on waiting for someone else to take the plunge. If you are an IT professional, then is should be your business to understand and embrace IPv6, whether that is in your network or in your software. If your issue is with your router not supporting IPv6, then make some noise to your router's manufacturer, install a third-party firmware or go with a company already offering an IPv6 capable router.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out?
-Taylor
NAT
NAT only helps client computers. It does nothing to help bring new servers online, that need a unique IP address.
Last time I heard /. had not moved to supporting IPv6 because of limitations in Slashcode. When I dug it turned out some of the Perl libraries used by Slashcode were not IPv6 ready and CPAN seems to dragging its feet when it comes to ensuring all its networking libraries are IPv6 ready - there certainly doesn't seem to be any concerted development effort to sort out these issues last I looked.
Since we are now getting to the final blocks of IPv4, how does this issue effect IPv6? Is this currently an IPv4 issue or will it impact IPv6 too?
So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out?
At that point essentially anyone wanting a new block of IPv4 addresses for their domain is out of luck. In this case they are left with two choices:
- Move on to IPv6 for their servers
- Get someone else to host their services - with HTTP you can share an IP, but have a different name (requires virtual domains with the same server instance)
Both have limitations, since in the first scenario you are limited to IPv6 clients and in the second you are limited to what can be hosted.
In both scenarios you could get a single IPv4 address for you network and then just NAT the PCs.
As you can see the real limitation is not for those accessing services, but for those providing services. There is an extra issue that comes into play, for the the entity providing the online services: you will be forced to find an ISP who already has native IPv6 support or using and IPv6 tunnel.
Well it is probably more along the lines of buying a book on Amazon from Borders. I can understand why they did this, but I am not sure that it was the right move to make. I should be able to buy a book on Android from the Apple app store and a book on iOS from the Android market place. It could seem like a way of promoting competition, but it could also show that even Android users and developers prefer to use the iOS based devices for their reading - a nice little irony.
Beyond the $1 fee, Firewire chipsets are probably more expensive than the USB counter parts. I say this because Firewire controllers usually do the heavy lifting, while with USB this is delegated to the processor.
I'm sure China has done just as much innovation on those rails as the Soviets did with the Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4)
We could also cite how USA and Russia innovated rocket technology, thanks to the Germans. I am not saying this is any better or worse, what I am saying is that if you comb through history then you will probably see many more cases of technology ending up in other countries without some sort of 'due' being paid. While it is only fair to compensate the original inventor or innovator, there are limits to doing so.
That is true, for the most part. Also those home users having a modem/router solution provided by their ISP should see this fairly transparently, though people with their own router will need to contact the manufacturer or get a new one. Also, people with software firewalls will need to get the upgraded version with IPv6 support.
At the same time, I take the stance that as an IT professional it useful to at least have a basic understanding of IPv6, just so any TCP/IP applications I may be developing support it already.
As long as it is not the only place to buy applications for the Mac, then that's ok. We already have steam for games and that works well.
The issue I have with the app store on the iPhone/iPad is that if it falls into a category that doesn't meet the puritan standards, then you can't buy it. It would be nice to see a place for application that are API compliant, but don't fill some of the other check-boxes.
We hear plenty of people acting as if we can duct tape IPv4 for ever and plug their ears at the shear mention of IPv6. The truth is instead of spending energy trying to hold afloat a sinking ship, it may be time to start putting the gang-plank out to that shiny new boat that can take us the rest of the way. It doesn't make sense to wait for the boat to be sunk before jumping ship, since you will find yourself having deal with bigger issues. Then again overpopulation and lack of natural resources may have started world war three in a few years, so none of this is worth worrying about ;)
For those of you that have already decided that its time to make the move, what steps have you put in place to ensure you get to IPv6 in one piece.
BTW Akamai is already working on upgrading its network to support IPv6 and have a target date of 2011. The admit that its going to be a tough challenge, but at least they have recognised it makes sense to start moving now, rather than later.
Add to that the referenced article was posted in 2007. Anything older than a year is probably out of the collective consciousness and the new article while being a dupe would probably news all over again :)
With GSM and CDMA being around so long already, I don't see why there's not already cheap, off the shelf, radios that support both formats the phone markers can just pick and put in there phones.
I doubt the problem is the technology and is more the licensing issues. Just take a look at the mobile litigation fest going on.
There is no such thing as 4G GSM. 4G is LTE, which is OFDMA (and based on CDMA). GSM is ancient 2G TDMA. Verizon will be CDMA (3G) and LTE (4G). Although it will use a SIM card, it will most definitely not use GSM.
You are mixing concepts and also letting yourself get lost in the marketing. GSM is a technology umbrella governed by the GSM Association. Traditionally when people talk about CDMA at a high level they are talking about Qualcomm CDMA, which is a protocol for mobile communication, which also happens to be using CDMA encoding. Since 3G GSM, WCDMA encoding schema has been incorporated, but this is not Qualcomm's solution.
In North America 3G and 4G had been used without context and originally talked about Qualcomm's technologies. To avoid confusion new terms were used to differentiate the GSM based solutions.
Some of the technologies which make up the GSM portfolio:
http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/index.htm
Outside of North America when people talk about GSM, they don't think about 2G, 3G, etc, but about the general mobile communication technology.
That's not exactly clear. Will the phone be unlocked? Will all carriers be using the same frequencies for 4G?
If you buy your phone contract free elsewhere it should be unlocked. Chances are not all carries will be using the same frequencies, so the phone will need to support them. One other bonus for Verizon, other than getting more phone selection at lower cost, is access to roaming customers.
In many way this is what will allow Verizon to get the iPhone. When the iPhone 5 comes out it is bound to support 4G, so even if Verizon is not an official partner, people will be able to use the phone there.
I have never been convinced that Apple would want to add CDMA capability, just for Verizon, because of the extra licensing costs and the fact Verizon had already announced that it was putting in place a 4G GSM network. I may still be wrong about Qualcomm-CDMA support being added (CDMA is part of GSM in the form of wave encoding, not protocol), though we will see.
When even just *one* person I deal with asks me if I can do IPv6, or offers a service that I need on IPv6, then I'll bring them back up quickly and accept the administrative needs. So far, it hasn't happened.
Sounds fair. The difference in your scenario is that you have done your homework and when the time comes it you know what to do to bring it back up. Most other people in IT either haven't planned for IPv6 or haven't done their homework.
The issues will get easier to deal with.
One thing that I encourage plenty of people to do is to write about their IPv6 experience and what they would do differently next time they implement and IPv6 network. The larger the knowledge base, the easier it will become for the next people jumping on the bandwagon.
Having IPv6 on your LAN doesn't mean you lose IPv4 connectivity. Both protocols can and do co-exist on your network. Hosts on my networks that are dual stacked IPv4/IPv6 include Windows XP, Windows 2000 (there was a developer pack a while back), Linux and MacOS X.
Originally when I first started playing with IPv6 on my network I took one of my MacOS X machines, got a subnet from Sixxs (tunnel broker) and installed Aiccu (their client software). With a little extra configuration to setup the machine to do router advertisements and make it act as router everything was up and running. All the machines that had IPv6 activated got themselves a routable IPv6 address and were able to connect to IPv6 web sites.
Later on I decided to buy myself an Apple Airport, which has IPv6 support and then simply enabled 6to4. Ideally I would have connected to Sixxs again, but there is a firmware issue when using PPPoE, that they have failed to fix thus far (if they want better advertising then they should have a longer firmware maintenance window).
Because of the limitation of the Apple Airport, I have been keeping my eyes open for alternative solutions. For me any viable solution needs to provide a GUI for configuration. OpenWRT and DD-WRT both have IPv6 support, but not from the UI last time I looked. The one that seems the most interesting is Tomato, which has a UI and is the one that a Canadian ISP known as Teksavvy is playing with (see here). Buffalo seems to have IPv6 in its firmware, but it is not a feature that is marketed, so I will need to try one out before going for it.
It should be noted that much of my knowledge on IPv6 has been garnered by spending time on the Sixxs.net forums and wiki.
For the most part once you have IPv6 installed on your network most people shouldn't notice. One thing to make sure is the router has a properly configured IPv6 firewall.
Quite honestly if you are using IP addresses to access everything, then you are doing something wrong. There are plenty of solutions for IP to name resolution, including:
- DNS
- Bonjour
- Samba
- Hosts file
There are others, but those are the ones I am aware of.
And if the issue is with neither the cable company nor the phone company offering IPv6 service, what next step do you recommend?
Turn to transitional solutions. You can already get an IPv6 tunnel via a tunnel broker, using 6to4 or Teredo (available standard on Windows 7 and available via Miredo on Linux, BSD and MacOS X) . Neither are ideal, but it is better than no solution at all. For a long time I have been using Sixxs as my tunnel broker, though there are others, such as Hurricane Electric.
If your router supports native IPv6 and IPv6 tunnels then it is a big plus. If you wish try experiment without the expenditure, then you can install a tunnel client on your computer. In all cases ensure you have a properly configured IPv6 firewall.
Once you have your IPv6 network up and running try connecting to http://ipv6.google.com/ or http://www.kame.net/ (you should see an animated turtle). Then you can start finding out which applications are IPv6 ready.
As long as whatever solution is transparent to the application, then that's what will make the most sense. If the applications are intranet only, then they could probably exist in their own IPv4 subnet with little regards for what is happening beyond their island. If they need internet connectivity then, they will probably still be okay for the next few years since existing IPv4 addresses won't vanish, they simply won't be able allocated anymore - I assume such applications will continue speaking to the same servers. We will have an IPv4 internet for a while after the world has moved to IPv6. Even a host which only knows how to speak IPv6 will probably still be able to speak to IPv4 hosts through IPv6/IPv4 bridges. See: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6IPv4AddressEmbedding.htm
This transition is not the first time is happened. For example companies who were using Novel Networks or IPX had to deal with migration to TCP/IP somehow.
Of course, you might not be ABLE to switch carriers. If Time Warner were to put me behind NAT, I'd be pretty much screwed. I might be able to switch to some form of wireless connection, but that might not even be any better.
That would suck, though look on the bright side, in a worst case scenario you could probably get an IPv6 capable router and then tunnel to an IPv6 PoP. Its far from ideal, but at least you wouldn't be totally stuck on Time Warner's island.
BTW Its worth noting that Comcast has already started IPv6 trials, though if your only ISP is TW, then it won't make much difference to you.
200K units per year is low, 40M laptops is huge, yet the iPad is truly baffling, since "Apple already revealed in July that it sold 3.27 million iPads in its first three months of availability":
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/05/apples_ipad_proclaimed_to_have_fastest_adoption_rate_ever.html
While it will be interesting to see if the same momentum lasts through to the end of the year, it should be mentioned those are the sales of just one company. RIM gets it (they announced the PlayBook), as does Google (with Android [GingerBread] 3.0 apparently supporting tablets) and as do a number of other hardware manufacturers. Microsoft's attempt seems to be in the same ball park as what was wrong with Windows CE or Windows Mobile (whatever name it goes by). I must admit I am curious whether HP will actually make a WebOS based tablet.
p2. The transition to IPv6 is probably going to need some NAT64 and DNS64 magick at some point. Not everybody is going to be well-served by running dual-stack hosts and networks. I've heard that some mobile broadband providers are looking at various kinds of NAT tricks to keep IPv4 marginally functional for legacy applications on IPv6-only networks without resorting to expensive tunnel encapsulation mechanisms.
Have you actually done a count of the number of addressable devices IPv6 provides. There may well be a time when IPv6 needs to be NATed, but that is well into the future when systems will be ready for a 256bit network address. At this point IPv6 provides just what we need for the next century, and possibly more. Trying to get any more mileage out of IPv4 is like taking a dying horse and expecting it to walk 1000 miles. It may make it, but there are good chances it won't.
If companies are having to deal with legacy applications, then there is nothing stopping them from having IPv4 in the internal network and having an IPv6 proxy or bridge in front of it. For everything else it will be IPv6. If companies are making new software today that is not IPv6 capable, that intended to accessible on the internet, then they deserve to be out of business tomorrow.
at work we use NAT behind a whole public class B and it work great. But as a customer I would not put up with it. I want to act as a server not only a dumb host. So please stop the carrier grade nating madness.
I already need to either define a computer as DMZed or do port mapping, because of NAT. Just imagine the amount of head-scratching people will do when they find out there is another NAT in front of theirs preventing access to their subnet. If my ISP starts NATing, then its just confirmation that I need to switch to another provider.
Add to this how many more NAT workarounds we will need to have in software. We already have to deal with NAT busting solutions, now we will have to deal with double NAT busting solutions. Believe me, NAT was a workaround to a limitation and we shouldn't be using this workaround at any more levels than necessary.
There is only so much duct tape you can use before it is time to just accept you will have to install the new solution.
If IPv6 appears so hard, its because people keep on waiting for someone else to take the plunge. If you are an IT professional, then is should be your business to understand and embrace IPv6, whether that is in your network or in your software. If your issue is with your router not supporting IPv6, then make some noise to your router's manufacturer, install a third-party firmware or go with a company already offering an IPv6 capable router.