Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Guntur:

That URL takes me to an SSO login on internetsociety.org.
Is that correct ? Internetsociety hosts walled garden content ?
I am puzzled.

With the title i found this:
https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/cybersecurity/adopting-and-enforcing-an-ipv6-only-policy-if-not-now-when/

Is that what you wanted to point to ?

Cheers
    Toerless

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:47:33PM +0700, Guntur Wiseno Putra wrote:
> Dear Toerless and
> architecture-discuss,
> 
> To inform that there is a post on IPv6 yesterday at the Open Forum's
> Discussion of the Internet Society:
> 
> "Adopting and Enforcing an IPv6-Only Policy: If Not Now, When"?
> 
> by Charles Sun
> 
> 
> 
> https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?MessageKey=f2844839-3d7d-40e2-b7ab-e4b0c1562de8&CommunityKey=3a9fa082-a518-475d-9e7f-ecec4ffe56dd&tab=digestviewer#bmf2844839-3d7d-40e2-b7ab-e4b0c1562de8
> 
> 
> 
> Regard,
> Guntur Wiseno Putra
> 
> Pada Selasa, 25 Februari 2020, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> menulis:
> 
> > [Bcc [e-mail], Cc: [e-mail]]
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > Funny to see how yours is the first actual answer to at least how i read
> > Khaleds question. I would summarize what you said with:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism
> >
> > (14 standardized plus a lot more. Aka: thank you, but we have enough)
> >
> > Most everybody else jumps to the growth of the IPv6 Internet, which
> > to me is just the visible tip of the iceberg of overall IPv4 and IPv6
> > deployments. I think the picture changes quite a bit if we look at the
> > whole iceberg.
> >
> > In private / controlled networks, the choices are not only IPv4 vs.
> > IPv6 or their interop, but also (SR-)MPLS and even more so L2 ethernet
> > switching.
> >
> > For all intent and purpose, Internet IPv6 vs. Internet IPv4 could soon
> > be software-only overlay virtual networks whereas the actual
> > terrabit accelerated hardware forwarding plane of future networks
> > maybe something else. 4G/5G "core" "network" already are such
> > overlay networks.
> >
> > [Rant]
> > I am not sure if the question, as constrained as  Khaled is asking
> > it will really help us to improve what we should do in the future. But
> > neither is the defensive reaction of IPv6 evangelists pointing at the
> > growth curve of the IPv6 Internet as the only relevant metric to the
> > success and benefits of IPv6.
> >
> > I am primarily concerned that we did manage to recognize we needed
> > disruptive innovartion in the 90th, when we came up with IPv6, but
> > now the predominant religion seems to be being stuck in small
> > incremental enhancements of that 25 year old architecture, especially
> > because its bible (RFC8200) did only think of the IPv6 Internet use-case
> > requirements, but not those of private/controlled networks.
> > [/Rant]
> >
> > Cheer
> >     Toerless
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:26:28PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > Really we do not need to be inventing anything new in this space.
> > > We already have too many mechanisms.  ISPs just need to DEPLOY the
> > > existing mechanism.
> > >
> > > We have plain dual stack.
> > >
> > > We have public IPv4 + 6rd for ISPs where the access network doesn???t
> > > support IPv6.
> > >
> > > We have CGN + 6RD + 100.64/10 for ISPs where the access network doesn???t
> > > support IPv6 and they have run out of IPv4 space.
> > >
> > > We have DS-Lite, MAP-E, MAP-T, NAT64 ??? providing IPV4AAS for when the
> > ISP
> > > has run out of IPv4 and the access network supports IPv6.
> > >
> > > We have CGN + IPv6.
> > >
> > > Do we really need something more at the protocol level?
> > >
> > > We do need Governments to ban the selling of new IPv4-only domestic
> > > devices (CPE routers, TV???s, game boxes, etc.).
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > > On 20 Feb 2020, at 11:32, Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Regardless the different %s, lets take the average one, it can not
> > make us optimistic and stop thinking about a better solution, we should
> > learn from the long time passed without full migration occured, if we will
> > wait till that happens, the division will occur which is not good for the
> > internet, lets welcome new ideas and give it the space, time, and
> > opportunity fairly, if it will be good then welcome, if not, trash is made
> > for this.
> > > >
> > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > >
> > > > From: ietf <[e-mail]> on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> > <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:00:58 AM
> > > > To: IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>
> > > > Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
> > > >
> > > > And you're missing several points about how those stats are looked at..
> > > >
> > > > The % in the stats shown by google/others is only what they can
> > measure, but they can't measure *all*. There are countries (big ones) that
> > don't allow measurements, or at least the same level of details, and
> > however, are doing massive IPv6 deployments.
> > > >
> > > > All the CDNs and caches have IPv6. The customers that have those
> > caches and enable IPv6 for their subscribers, are getting ranges over 65%,
> > sometimes even up to 85-90% of IPv6 traffic when mainly the subscribers are
> > householders instead of big enterprises.
> > > >
> > > > Also, the google (and others) measurements, show average worldwide,
> > but if you look to many countries they have even surpassed the 50% or so.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Jordi
> > > > @jordipalet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ???El 20/2/20 5:38, "ietf en nombre de Khaled Omar" <
> > [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> > > >
> > > >     Since long time I was observing this, still almost the same, no
> > clear progress occurred.
> > > >
> > > >     Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >     Khaled Omar
> > > >
> > > >     -----Original Message-----
> > > >     From: Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]>
> > > >     Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:11 PM
> > > >     To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> > > >     Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>
> > > >     Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
> > > >
> > > >     Quite a few folk are already there - see
> > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
> > > >
> > > >     Scott
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > **********************************************
> > > > IPv4 is over
> > > > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> > > > http://www.theipv6company.com
> > > > The IPv6 Company
> > > >
> > > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> > or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> > communication and delete it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > > PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss


-- 
---
[e-mail]