Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 26 February 2020 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06AFC3A07CE for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:24:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKvu9XK0dHck for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:24:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C6E93A07C4 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:24:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61FEB86C11; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:24:44 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
To: Stewart Bryant <>
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB08431E138262F2A43C1D0621AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB0843939F3B38426960A66E70AE130@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:00:58 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:24:59 -0000

On 26/2/20 10:22, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2020, at 13:03, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
>> On 20/2/20 00:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>> Hi Victor,
>>> Of course, I see your points and I’m not saying that IETF has nothing to do with that, neither that it applies the same to every possible country case. It was just part of this discussion.
>>> I’ve worked for a few governments, on this, with more or less success depending on the case, and most of the time is a matter of the right schedule, not saying the existing services should support IPv6 tomorrow, but “new” or “updated” services should do it in a given timing. This was my point 1.
>>> Regarding 2, I think if a country ban importing or selling IPv4-only products, with a determined time scale (to be studied case by case), is perfectly valid and not impacting global Internet at all. Existing IPv4 services can remain. Products in stock can be sold during “n” months, not afterwards.
>>> Example, SmartTVs without IPv6 could be sold during 6 additional months, not imported anymore after 3 months, etc.
>> Have e.g. 3G-only mobile phones been banned? Or do users *opt* not to buy such phones for a reason? (there might be an implicit message in the possible answer to this question).
> People buy 2G only devices and getting them out of the network and recovering the spectrum is a problem.

I normally buy mobile phones with at least two considerations:

* I get the service I expect (e.g., fast data rate)

* It works where I mean to use it.

That's why I buy 4G-enabled, but do double-check the frequency bands, 
since otherwise they just wouldn't work.

Similarly, nobody banned, AFAIK, cassette tapes or floppy disks....

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492