Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group proposal

james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Thu, 30 June 2011 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@apple.com>
X-Original-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A0211E8080; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bd0bo+7HWO7i; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75324228010; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Received: from relay11.apple.com ([17.128.113.48]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPS id <0LNM007I6NKMIBF1@mail-out.apple.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807130-b7c45ae000001381-d7-4e0d0be80dd0
Received: from jimbu (jimbu.apple.com [17.151.62.37]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 80.95.04993.8EB0D0E4; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [17.193.13.64] (unknown [17.193.13.64]) by cardamom.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LNM006UUNLT4Q20@cardamom.apple.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <4E0D0281.3020608@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:51:29 -0700
Message-id: <B9E7B6AF-6BD0-4BD4-AEAC-D318C099CCCE@apple.com>
References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300707370.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4E0C1CF8.7090601@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300923280.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se> <558D0669-8B2A-4514-B3FB-C690C40A4EF8@townsley.net> <0F995E91-9853-4018-91F0-0699E1A7A06F@network-heretics.com> <780C3063-AD82-46F3-874A-C4E1E61EE508@townsley.net> <4E0D0281.3020608@raszuk.net>
To: fun@ietf.org, homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OVfcFN6+fwckeI4vHB2axW2y71M/m wOSxZMlPpgDGKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6MhhX7mQt28VVM3PSNtYHxFXcXIyeHhICJxPkjsxkh bDGJC/fWs3UxcnEICbQySexaPZkJJMErICjxY/I9li5GDg5mAXmJg+dlQcLMAloS3x+1skDU tzNJPJj/kh0kISxgI9G4eyIbiM0moCLx7fJdsDmcQA1nz0xjAbFZBFQlnh7+xgYx30bicd9E RohBS5glTp9bCTZIREAZ6Loz7BDXyUssbvnMOIGRfxaSm2Yh3DQLyU0LGJlXMQoWpeYkVhoa 6iUWFOSk6iXn525iBAVbQ6HBDsa1P/kPMQpwMCrx8CpM4fETYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMK7qhoo xJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnDc2k9tPSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwLhdneOn8KRJ s1tqNZPW8nNNlNma/GAhx3vx11fKM0N1T6ZqlHoxsCRG5se6TOSYe3HqrrTv86XrhI0O7rry Jc1ztU3d/VdvHpvI2Z86uGyiccQi+2v1wUK+82d9nuB2XHBfFc/+JZMkbLm6P89KTOGaOOXs sdsfd67re7/ko1BApRlP3ZIz72YqsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAvBke1jICAAA=
Subject: Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group proposal
X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <homegate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homegate>
List-Post: <mailto:homegate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:51:31 -0000

On Jun 30, 2011, at 16:10 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
> 
> ...when there is new killer app which works only over v6...

There's another conditional that may be more relevant.

When there is a new "killer" application that doesn't work when one endpoint is IPv4-only and the other is attached to a 3GPP network with IPv6-only service and using NAT64 with the well-known 64:ff9b::/64 prefix, and optionally a bump-in-the-host to provide an IPv4 networking API to applications.  I happen to be aware of a whole family of interesting applications that are broken by such configurations, and I'm pretty sure they will remain broken into the foreseeable future.  Those configurations are already here in some parts of the Internet, and when these applications I'm thinking about are deployed on those networks (they are not currently, but... mene mene tekel upharsin), they will fail.

And whose fault will that be?  Not mine, brother.  Not mine.

Is your service provider breaking those awesome applications by not offering full dual-stack service?  If so, then you need to get a new service provider.  Either get one that offers full dual-stack over 3GPP so your applications can connect with IPv4-only endpoints, or get one that offers full dual-stack over first-mile wireline to your site, so your applications can connect to IPv4-impaired mobile endpoints.

The key thing here is that by Alice choosing to use one service provider over another, she can make Bob's application fail, and vice versa.  The mobile service providers that don't have enough IPv4 addresses to serve all their customers are in a bind and can't budge.  The wireline service providers who have 5-10 years of IPv4 addresses in reserve are the ones whistling past the graveyard.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>;
member of technical staff, core os networking