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

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

Dear Toerless &
architecture-discuss,

I finded a 2011 article in the IETF Journal with the same title plus:

"IPv4, IPv6 Coexistence Challenges Network Operators" (Carolyn Duffy
Marsan, March 6th 2016)


https://www.ietfjournal.org/ipv4-ipv6-coexistence-challenges-network-operators/

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Rabu, 26 Februari 2020, Guntur Wiseno Putra <[e-mail]>
menulis:

> 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 <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/ad
>> opting-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-ho
>> me/digestviewer/viewthread?MessageKey=f2844839-3d7d-40e2-b7a
>> b-e4b0c1562de8&CommunityKey=3a9fa082-a518-475d-9e7f-ecec4ffe
>> 56dd&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]
>>
>