In reply to a post by blueacid:

One supposes that dual-stack could be later twinned with carrier grade NAT on ipv4 to achieve this... It's one solution at least and might explain BT/Plusnet paying that idea attention.

See my reply to yarwell. It's lunacy to have dual-stack at the user end.

Other than dual-stack somewhere in the mix (end user, SP, carrier, tunnel broker etc.) how do you envision the change over from IPv4 to IPv6 happening?

As I replied to awoodland, if I understand NAT64 and 464xlat they look like the answer. What I don't see as at all sensible is every home computing device having dual-stack not far in the future, which is when it will be necessary.

The resources of the big players seem to be being used to set up a mammoth codge up that it will be almost impossible to unwind, instead of conversion systems between end users and web servers.

As the older IPv4-based kit and systems at each end faded away, following a build-up of IPv6-based that has already started, those converters would peak then decline in usage, with the possibility of setting a switch-off date for IPv4 in a couple of decades or so.

Dual-stack at the user end will perpetuate the manufacture of IPv4-based kit and full switch-over to IPv6 will take far longer.

I don't do interpretation and elaboration. Sorry. Don't assume everyone has your world view or way of reading or thinking.

Does IPv6 prevent access to IPv4 ? No.

Simple

Can I access an IPv4-only website with an IPv6-only computer ? No.

Good questions get good answers. Woolly questions get 50 post threads.

All the bodges aren't necessary if web sites etc run dual stacks. They're supposed to be run by people who know what they're doing, so the humble user could do what they wanted and anything would work.

Is IPv4 CG NAT necessary for dual stack? That seems to be what BT tell us, but I'm wondering if it's just a way to delay IPv6 rollout for several more years.

CG NAT only neccessary if you think you won't have enough IPv4 addresses to last until the time when some people are happy to elect to use only IPv6

Perhaps we should have a turn off IPv4 for an evening event to show how unready many online sites/services are.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Perhaps we should have a turn off IPv4 for an evening event to show how unready many online sites/services are.

An evening? An hour will be sufficient and in that tie every help desk would go into melt down!

I was specifically wondering if ISPs could roll out dual stack without IPv4 CG NAT.

IDNet is doing precisely that, so yes it is possible.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

See my reply to yarwell. It's lunacy to have dual-stack at the user end.

Why?