Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Wed, 26 February 2020 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80703A1195 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:04:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RRS2ePwZLDuX for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5716E3A10E0 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:04:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1582743886; x=1583348686;; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=CZsxMdBs joXZL9R11zfMkONdLG58g/M+smYJ3CzD16g=; b=MJA+NEUsLWCN8HC+7UVP9P+j DRZCkJiVL9pBZzlOware59QLOxIJjC1/blhwmiy303Uu3jqukcS2OJRWRguiUxX/ RCVflyTf5GkAtvyy0uOVsAQfqU9SBMuWXLAeDlaIdnniOSbrfpRJANx/2I4h8mX/ QG0Z5NLVyXJOqzJjrJE=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed:, Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:04:46 +0100
X-Spam-Processed:, Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:04:45 +0100
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000071960.msg for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:04:44 +0100
X-MDHelo: []
X-MDArrival-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:04:44 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:04:38 +0100
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
To: IETF Rinse Repeat <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB08431E138262F2A43C1D0621AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB0843939F3B38426960A66E70AE130@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
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 19:04:53 -0000

This happens quite often.

If you have an analog TV and DTV is deployed, at some point you can't use anymore the analog TV unless you "add" a "converter". This was done with the government mandate.

I recall a Spanish operator that was asking the customers of old "rotary-dial phones" to move to DTMF ones. Customers that don't want to do that, either buy an expensive "adapter" or get their contract canceled, instead of renewed. This needed the government mandate.

I'm sure this happened in many countries, and the "mandate" have a very specific plan, with timing for every phase, such as "no more manufacturing in the country allowed", "no more importing to the country allowed", "no more sales of old stocks allowed".

I perfectly see that at some point, operators can choose to do the same with IPv4: you get a converter (an RFC8585 compatible router) from the operator or from the retail store, or your contract is not renovated.

This is perfectly valid also if at some point governments in their duty to protect consumers, take the necessary steps.


El 26/2/20 14:12, "ietf en nombre de Fernando Gont" < en nombre de> escribió:

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

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.