Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 25 January 2017 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4C4129659 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xre9-C7Rg-QU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 344C8129652 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 845931FCAB9; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:27:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EA7716006D; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:27:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAC6160067; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:27:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id X1Ry89ycTIxe; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:27:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A52C2160042; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:27:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D576089F56; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:27:02 +1100 (EST)
To: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <844840869.114000858.1485299485194.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <20170124235626.042F960836B0@rock.dv.isc.org> <158901d276b3$387d6050$a97820f0$@huitema.net> <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B8459489B47@newserver.arneill-py.local>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:11:08 -0000." <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B8459489B47@newserver.arneill-py.local>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:27:02 +1100
Message-Id: <20170125032702.11D576089F56@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8EIEN_S-z_Mw4tVRcmxgL9HsrVg>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:27:16 -0000

In message <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B8459489B47@newserver.arneill-py.local
> >, Michel Py writes:
> > Christian Huitema wrote :
> > The blog explains that Microsoft IT wants to move their network to IPv6
> > only.
>
> And I'm sure there is another quite helpful blog that explains why
> Microsoft IT wants to move to a Windows 10 only environment too.
>
> Michel.

But Microsoft aren't the only ones that are looking to deploy
IPv6-only due to not having enough IPv4 addresses internally.  There
is also Google, Facebook ...

The IETF has produced multiple solutions that provide IPv4 as a
service with IPv6-only to the node.  All of them require IPv6 nodes
and/or applications to be updated to be generally useful.

NAT64/DNS64 requires applications which deal with IPv4 literals to
be updated.

Dual-Stack-Lite node mode requires a tunnel interface be configured
the destination address of which is advertised in a DHCPv6 option.
For those that don't like DHCPv6 we could add a RA option.

One just breaks more things.  I'll let you guess which.

Mark

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org