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

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

Hang on.. the deployment of DNSSEC backed applications is a bit iffy if we
depend on deployment of DNS based tricks to cover for V4/V6 interoperation
surely?

-G

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]
> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, John Curran <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> 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 -
>> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/09/verizon-wireless-hits-56-ipv6-t-mobile-usa-40-att-24/
>>
>>
> 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.
>