Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com> Tue, 25 February 2020 07:47 UTC
Return-Path: <gsenopu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945F33A0966 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:47:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HAAyJkd2QKdh for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31CE63A0965 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id j132so11670193oih.9 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:47:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LqjIi/y6xrsjjqITi1C5QFH4bFJy2EUsRnpcIsdcRak=; b=OOa364B6epnzWejVLEtElpOIg1PB81ZlGPJnRjK0DD3dcjJaUwZt6He0L6eezEHxwN yq1exoXyaHawfY2gUp2kC180aM2rcU2CemWx/2VHfLeujK6KNAaQ485/kNkXUmaMUk/2 dDOUi5xv/w8EXlp1CavNjw9Nv4IASkU6Fb6zb4RRQNd6+wDbnT8PK5jLuHQk8sYaAlRX Oc2DucV9THt2WtyrHAvEF/oEFDUgY1GZ0g1eLdJspSjK+1AqmJcGTe5o3qIQQm+uhq+/ sJG0Gx4zl8HoXyXmIEC++J/wEfCEUI8u7dDIM8BzA8/6Mu19zXwl6Di9g5W8VjtJO3Tk JmcA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LqjIi/y6xrsjjqITi1C5QFH4bFJy2EUsRnpcIsdcRak=; b=Aa4Xdt4SutsykVU5OW+Yvr6dnt2fwXqhkpdYurSTUiFQ3W/TJ3R077S8N7dbAge2sZ g1r85tOguZ+b1juZxUeZ9Kv+ZHNMIwZdS13KlgkbOwJacSV4VFluVgWgWhsQZHQHAkni pwvJXnJYKUj/WE+2PHfUsCqZMqymjoQHnVd85+kqPNb7NUvP0xQ4K86Sd2qxf66dMmk2 WOXU3NT94GA8EtGFGgFvtgk9sOOgjarQPwOYII7PaY+dd3YCcU7GSedywEJ0zfDZwa9B Wu3XZs3TwcTUZDlszzIuB+CxstDYihxzNPlUQ0A++7TcZputFBXB/rlh9UMzBihLBFgW 9pQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXS+zlPE+dvYA8uX9reL0OCb+H0nZajYd03WGGsvoDI78cjaT6D I2cEx5KsKf3zP6Y7bxQSD/B2TbmXMJzpi45WuZo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzYIvDXx21/Ae1JAwdu/KzwohfqBapiBdR2IAWZYCAzT+fIdFKXAj5yxvYSc4/QnmpLut/vqOOuBhcD4xpvJuE=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f354:: with SMTP id r81mr2354090oih.90.1582616853448; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:47:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1155:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:47:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20200224222715.GA49892@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <EDAE6375-EE0B-4864-9834-C1FBC209D581@sobco.com> <PR3P194MB08431E138262F2A43C1D0621AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <8ADEA0E1-291A-4400-9925-F65A26116372@consulintel.es> <PR3P194MB0843939F3B38426960A66E70AE130@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <D8063303-7DDA-41F8-A63A-C0244E3E9E25@isc.org> <20200224222715.GA49892@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:47:33 +0700
Message-ID: <CAKi_AEuqn0NPiSqzrD4fn_mW1GJCOnh6aeG_DH7t_mmFH=8Dtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005d8d7b059f61b3d2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/g-xYEYFGETg6NO8xS780B2ntB8I>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:47:37 -0000
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 <tte@cs.fau.de> menulis: > [Bcc ietf@ietf.org, Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org] > > 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 <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> > 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 <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:00:58 AM > > > To: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org> > > > 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" < > ietf-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> 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 <sob@sobco.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:11 PM > > > To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> > > > Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org> > > > 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: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture-discuss mailing list > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss >
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Fred Baker
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. heinerhummel
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. heinerhummel
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Stewart Bryant
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Stewart Bryant
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Stewart Bryant
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. FREDERICK BAKER
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence. Guntur Wiseno Putra