Talk:IPv6 transition mechanism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:32, 22 February 2016

Computing: Networking Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Internet Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Change of title

I renamed the title phrase "IPv6 translation" to "IPv6 transition", because the goal is a transition to IPv6, not the reverse (from IPv6). This is the standard term used when referring in general to the migration to IPv6. The first citations of the article describe transition mechanisms, not translation mechanism, but the remainder does list the aspects of "translation" of features. Alternatively, to be correct, the title might also be "IPv4-IPv6 translation mechanism", if one want to stick with the 'translation' term. Discussions are encouraged. Kbrose (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable to me. I went ahead and fixed the double redirects. Wrs1864 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the opinion and the fixes Kbrose (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me too. Translation is one of several a transition mechanisms. --Kvng (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regroup

I think that we should regroup all the IPv6 transition mechanisms in three main groups:

- Dual Stack
- Tunneling
- Translation

This is the usual form of division of the types of mechanisms in serveral documentation, including IPV6#Transition mechanisms. If we think so, I can do it.Mtorrecilla (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast Discussion

No reference to Comcast's adoption of DS-Lite, or the fact that they have published a custom open source router firmware based on OpenWRT? Their firmware is designed to use 6RD to tunnel IPv6 over IPv4 at first and then automatically detect and reverse the tunneling when Comcast provisions the user with IPv6. IMHO they kind of bungled their management of the firmware release: they just put it out there, and expected "the community" to go wild. Doesn't mean it's any less impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasternPA (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Market relevance?

This article is supposed to be about IPv6 transition methods. It appears an irrelevant section about IPv4 markets is here. It appears to violate NPoV, and is the only section which doesn't actuall have anything to do with moving IPv6 packets. I think it should be removed. jzp (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment and removed the section. Kbrose (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==Market relevance?==
 This article is supposed to be about IPv6 transition methods. It appears an irrelevant section about IPv4 markets is here. It appears to violate NPoV, and is the only section which doesn't actuall have anything to do with moving IPv6 packets. I think it should be removed. [[User:Jzp|jzp]] ([[User talk:Jzp|talk]]) 06:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
+:I agree with your assessment and removed the section. [[User:Kbrose|Kbrose]] ([[User talk:Kbrose|talk]]) 16:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)