Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2261121E80F1; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g98OsUNtsdSs; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645F911E8127; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 00698a-hsutim.corp.zynga.com ([199.48.105.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAEKRcfT051144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:27:38 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <52853234.9030302@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:27:32 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/25.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <5ABB4DF8-95F0-4B07-8D20-6A00B7631E11@employees.org> <30650.1384272400@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <30650.1384272400@sandelman.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CQsvwe5JbwQHx6xptnfVQkO20HlTPfvUi"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:27:39 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:27:41 -0000

On 11/12/13, 8:06 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>     > In the context of http://xkcd.com/927/
> 
> this comic part is pretty important context, but many might not have gotten it.
> 
>     > This is a call for action to get to 14!
> 
> So Ole is saying that we need a 14th specification/standard in order to
> bind the existing 13 (although I'm not sure how he got 13)
> 
> I'm also dismayed at the number of efforts.
> It would be nice to convene a summit of operators (at RIPE or NANOG) and 
> describe the various mechanisms and rather than ask them which one they like,
> ask them which one they would *NEVER* consider.  That might reduce the
> field by half...

I'm pretty sure the "if we just get the right people in the room then
we'll get the right one's" model isn't going to work... There's a
market-place out there, that can pick one if it turns out to be
necessary. The fact that to a large degree it hasn't, might mean, it's
too early, none of extant ones are the right one, there isn't a market
need for it, or something else.

As an operator, albeit not of retail ISP networks, the fact of the
matter is I don't need transition technologies of the encapsulation or
translation variety to serve either my ipv4 or IPv6 customers, so asking
me which I find more compelling is missing the point.

> My gut is that until we have a unified story and some fielded product on
> deploying v4 over v6, that for a number of ISPs, adding v6 is just added cost
> with no savings.
>