Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Thu, 20 February 2020 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <victor@jvknet.com>
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 D6CB61201DB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:29:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 u9CbpKASUaLq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:29:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21CB712002E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:29:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id a6so362269wme.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:29:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bPvti+SUcz+q4lwNbDtJp5TLe81JThqlLoz0RzWxplI=; b=crgcpQKs9nyXXV3PYRq2zuzRVQThNDFbkdkQymVfCXVFcQmHBUGZOuCz5U2sE6dO3s ofKXQwUWVH0Xzp9+2vlJXUevdI5ojjHlrSntp+Y0lOYW/D1M2ZdlzdcLXAB82zXiF1mr pxsYSM6YQFe2905PpIL4bsUTFMAZFi+cyEU4CGVt31IKIzz8nh8uv+cQL5Rn9cjFhRF5 x7nYYtFWe0DPZiN5N0y1N9KisXEEu7tGKA8oy6SESZ+D1EWpsBg2/LAF+nEdxVkbK3l6 7+ccPPxKQIKRc/oxWMdjMpVJhN9/3qZfkp4A8X2DaGbGeG/BSA8tPi3iKENKg8AqVGEA wMXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bPvti+SUcz+q4lwNbDtJp5TLe81JThqlLoz0RzWxplI=; b=firpC6ndeypnKQd7SvwMBT97y9fCQ9OTicQb5rfSPVzF34x5gxJgKChnrSISwR8jP9 fV+I5jgzbHK0nDbToaW1GBGlJJdlKiHYAy57gvTbSx9S2amXqf2UQCASKO3rvIinUEny dO+z93emBngLAPYqhLkyQYwk3xHgG6Vu1ZHinmNOxdKT6OHbyVEqZZEzVxMnsrLa7EmL gh7ee7M/6oDSDcMErnBnBGCt0+Hw2K0fro6m2QEtd3Y3Antd6jfJ/dCJKULIJloCDdJy 0g+TnNVng8VWJ3PwwycX9TkT93MjxglxAd0P+hmWV+7oL6M1FU09Kj09F9pDLjCDVajR JE3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWHPm6VCWZ14WZeE3gjk4LqDUsboA/o8bkV8vPTERKXZROiyZy +uQnw1f7ZRLUwM7cRiO9ZAaAVzvQw3Xdt4LGBqnU2w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyFQsubtOHqKeSmLqup1jsigFEdsdTUYyxxd++VQRDKF482SeWzYUl+Aj+KTW4rGJJ5QlMCHFXOuWUt2RcqB7c=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7419:: with SMTP id p25mr1102663wmc.159.1582165794427; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:29:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <EDAE6375-EE0B-4864-9834-C1FBC209D581@sobco.com> <PR3P194MB08431E138262F2A43C1D0621AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <8ADEA0E1-291A-4400-9925-F65A26116372@consulintel.es> <PR3P194MB0843939F3B38426960A66E70AE130@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <D8063303-7DDA-41F8-A63A-C0244E3E9E25@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <D8063303-7DDA-41F8-A63A-C0244E3E9E25@isc.org>
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:29:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJc3aaN_t3BgdOV20jJV=ncYNZqL9VYDO+cTO+tvbjK6c1ci_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000272997059ef8ae91"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OC4ChcxX-bt9otaw9u6eB-jdZeI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 02:30:00 -0000

 The sad reality is anyone whom is responsible to build, expand or manage a
network needs to deal with the IPv4 long tail connectivity needs.

I would agree with Mark's comment related to the notion we have enough
transition technologies today.  As far as I can see, anyone who needed to
deploy IPv6 and/or create a pathway to legacy IPv4 has been able to do so
(perhaps there are corner cases, but I would say for the vast majority,
they could do what they needed to do).

As for the governments intervening, I am not so sure about that, but I am
not opposed (just don't think it will work). Bureaucracy rarely solves what
turns out to be a fundamental market problem.

regards,

Victor K


On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 8:27 PM Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> Really we do not need to be inventing anything new in this space.
> We already have too many mechanisms.  ISPs just need to DEPLOY the
> existing mechanism.
>
> We have plain dual stack.
>
> We have public IPv4 + 6rd for ISPs where the access network doesn’t
> support IPv6.
>
> We have CGN + 6RD + 100.64/10 for ISPs where the access network doesn’t
> support IPv6 and they have run out of IPv4 space.
>
> We have DS-Lite, MAP-E, MAP-T, NAT64 … providing IPV4AAS for when the ISP
> has run out of IPv4 and the access network supports IPv6.
>
> We have CGN + IPv6.
>
> Do we really need something more at the protocol level?
>
> We do need Governments to ban the selling of new IPv4-only domestic
> devices (CPE routers, TV’s, game boxes, etc.).
>
> Mark
>
> > On 20 Feb 2020, at 11:32, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Regardless the different %s, lets take the average one, it can not make
> us optimistic and stop thinking about a better solution, we should learn
> from the long time passed without full migration occured, if we will wait
> till that happens, the division will occur which is not good for the
> internet, lets welcome new ideas and give it the space, time, and
> opportunity fairly, if it will be good then welcome, if not, trash is made
> for this.
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android
> >
> > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:00:58 AM
> > To: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
> >
> > And you're missing several points about how those stats are looked at.
> >
> > The % in the stats shown by google/others is only what they can measure,
> but they can't measure *all*. There are countries (big ones) that don't
> allow measurements, or at least the same level of details, and however, are
> doing massive IPv6 deployments.
> >
> > All the CDNs and caches have IPv6. The customers that have those caches
> and enable IPv6 for their subscribers, are getting ranges over 65%,
> sometimes even up to 85-90% of IPv6 traffic when mainly the subscribers are
> householders instead of big enterprises.
> >
> > Also, the google (and others) measurements, show average worldwide, but
> if you look to many countries they have even surpassed the 50% or so.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> > @jordipalet
> >
> >
> >
> > El 20/2/20 5:38, "ietf en nombre de Khaled Omar" <ietf-bounces@ietf.org
> en nombre de eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> escribió:
> >
> >     Since long time I was observing this, still almost the same, no
> clear progress occurred.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     Khaled Omar
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
> >     Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:11 PM
> >     To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
> >     Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
> >     Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
> >
> >     Quite a few folk are already there - see
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
> >
> >     Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > IPv4 is over
> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> > http://www.theipv6company.com
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>
>