IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 25 January 2017 03:40 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 2581C129672 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:40:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, 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 DXjqQ69vQRkd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:40:03 -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 0E176129670 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:40:03 -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 DF16B1FCAB9; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99BBF160042; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:39:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B93160067; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:39:58 +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 ZnBvYRYVVo5Z; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:39:58 +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 2E36D160042; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:39:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BDD608A5EB; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:39:54 +1100 (EST)
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:27:02 +1100."
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:39:54 +1100
Message-Id: <20170125033954.39BDD608A5EB@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Eb8Z3fM5cz6O_uCswt0lFAd6V0M>
Cc: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>, 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 03:40:04 -0000

Mark Andrews writes:
> 
> In message <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B8459489B47@newserver.arneill-py.loc
> al
> > >, 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.

464XLAT with a in node CLAT.  You still have to deal with the DNS munging
and everything that is known to be broken with NAT64/DNS64.
 
> 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
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email