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

[Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>]

Dear Toerless,
architecture-discuss &
Mr. Charles Sun,


I wish Mr. Charles Sun does not mind if I share his post (originally sent
to the Open Forum's discussion of the Internet Society) to
architecture-discuss:


Adopting and Enforcing an IPv6-Only Policy: If Not Now, When?
Follow

   - 1.
   0 Recommend
   Charles Sun
   <https://connect.internetsociety.org/network/members/profile?UserKey=26993102-1a3e-407c-b8ac-d2ce10c1f967>
   Posted 2 days ago
   ReplyOptions Dropdown

   Adopting and enforcing the IPv6-only policy worldwide by securely
   deploying the single stack of IPv6, turning off IPv4, and setting a
   specific deadline to sunset IPv4 completely will dramatically reduce the
   overall cybersecurity threats and attacks based on IPv4.

   It is not a question as to whether or not we should adopt and enforce an
   IPv6-only policy by turning off and sunsetting IPv4, but rather a question
   that we all must ask: If not now, when?!

   Here is the link to the full text of my latest opinion article:
   https://tinyurl.com/yxx386fd


* #**cybersecurity*
   <https://www.linkedin.com/feed/hashtag/?highlightedUpdateUrns=urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A6633653517426970624&keywords=%23cybersecurity&originTrackingId=j%2FKMmSv1So8QpzyyDqvheg%3D%3D>
    #IPv6Only
   <https://connect.internetsociety.org/search?s=%23IPv6Only&executesearch=true>
    #IPv6
   <https://connect.internetsociety.org/search?s=tags%3A%22IPv6%22&executesearch=true>

   *Disclaimer: The views presented are only personal opinions and they do
   not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Government.*
   ​​​

   ------------------------------
   [e-mail]
   IPv6 Expert, Speaker, Columnist, Board Member, IT Executive.

   Note: replies will be sent to the full discussion group.
   ------------------------------




Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Rabu, 26 Februari 2020, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> menulis:

> 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]
>