Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Fri, 05 December 2014 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2E91A87E1; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:39:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fkx7KPP4TPFh; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CBDF1A6F8C; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:39:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id gm9so15097663lab.40 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:39:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=k+xaVz4cIKiDJHOKoTsSDpftYCv+YgFd+P5HIjmcSl0=; b=yvHd4UMYDlCPG4BqDjZhbHMkO6upfk5UmJGRbt7gJ5FRmG0UzXk0nuvzCBi4e/RAPR y/epXIL0k8mJiAgmSvFm/6mkcWfFNKZzO8HO5fgMEo0od5+Opq+K2R7AjxZS53SQYEfv PfDWj08N+D6QdmX4d84qEZMjNTg3juIiI6BnFpPr2Y+VG/wAG9csEzT553QQElEl4sRk Z7jM4pIRUbmhkCiTOENgICvhq2v91/zCwDcI3h+U0pf6MtIJZoL/jFw0y68st1InhbTU l0Wl5r+cQtwnobnyx4T49KvQbGub2YrtMHyEX1MJ0/8YLcJqR8q8tAnfQM62KZEDhUVV erOQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id gh8mr519011lbc.91.1417747165082; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:39:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:39:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:39:24 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: CuPiwwKWQVkFQ_PDUD07yw4Vkj0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: John Curran <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c36e2e27fbea05096efc7d
Cc: IESG <>, Bob Hinden <>, Dave Crocker <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:28 -0000

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, John Curran <> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Dave Crocker <> wrote:
> > ...
> > So, after 25 years of effort, we've achieved 5% penetration.  Wow.
> I'm not certain that it is appropriate to count the years of protocol
> development, testing, and deployment into operating systems and routers
> as the denominator for the "5% penetration"...  There has not been a
> strong need for IPv6 until there was actual runout of IPv4 free pool,
> and this did not occur in any of the regions until 2011 (and is yet to
> happen in the North American region)   You should either measure service
> provider enablement of IPv6 from IPv4 free pool runout dates, or need to
> consider the IPv6 protocol support that has been achieved in deployed
> devices (enabled or not) over the 25 year period.
> Also, characterizing IPv6 success based on one providers success is
> probably not informative... there are service providers with much
> higher enablement -
Just to clarify, what is the proposal here:

1) Address+Port become one way to manage the depleted address pool
2) Address+Port become the one and only way

I see no problem with 1, it is a sensible proposal. I would see a lot of
problems with 2.

Turning to John's point, the problem for IPv6 deployment is that IPv4
address depletion is not and will never be a reason for people deploying
IPv6. Until IPv6 delivers 100% of the functionality of IPv4, IPv4 behind
NAT will beat IPv6.

The solution for deployment then is to make IPv6 deliver 100% connectivity.
And there are several ways we might go about that. DNS64 for example. But
any such scheme is going to require a break from the pure IP end-to-end
principle because the addresses have to change from IPv4 to IPv6 somewhere
along the path.

It really isn't a major change. It does not even require a gateway to be
statefull. But some people think that it is more important to suppress such
heretical thoughts than to address the deployment problem.