Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 26 February 2020 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D485C3A0A4E for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:22:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FI4NHZ6vxb7B for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED763A0A49 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z15so3027504wrl.1 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:22:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/aFN15AbluviwAuKSXIwT3d1MxIzi6tCy5KwrnWh8lQ=; b=vIqmJ/JjUOPHkbf0jK8QB87Nqrr/wzjs5L6H3LUHuKwjWauZbAhqtA++01WHFcTwr8 Fyc1otT4FaFnTTZ3EyJ5goWhynpqmaJNzDS9PJsfp/2x7Tx31z+xsYgy8m3IQaqJoLR8 A6z8dWjQuqpxJY9DraoS8+SNUDiSu9fO5thVeIgVUvdfnL2wpD0tN89Hp2eEqOqXAGXE 0NrDEMe0e1NF5+Br3ggUHZpf82gliV3oFo88Y/JNvjGX+CHVIeI0SB07FGx5GTDURce3 p1uIdkLgDdu9luASDcHfV9Gl+e9o8rmku600FP+4L5wRoLYAJP2oSOVTxvrf3lVD9qzd HkhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/aFN15AbluviwAuKSXIwT3d1MxIzi6tCy5KwrnWh8lQ=; b=pmBF9VsVhmiQ3VnYCFnX5FoG5NTm5chEgsBAnFrsKq67qHBa5GCQtRIaPKfvSUebsB PNZ5xCO9BBA9KAQ8TFTpgewccetdsUx3vM56BCdNmuAaRXSvpkCVt/0KnL7tWza2yXKn +n2fGYOeNBq//jnWMi3qktaCBve7rJPuTZYkDxagRjOpplrGga95jYzc0k+mio1dmD9d 9/XpvPwMKBN7AIPXY37PFLgybRqDNPmo8XbGkHlfc/spbMLTJb06kYpQNObkVEmQNcdW uu3wYwM6y7To4RO/RScQPBWmHYECktNEqKc4liyoieHnmfzDCj6CMOoLn/vEpn0RpBgt vQhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUu97bsEjZ6bR7NiBeJS2bELhU+FdEpGno4FV6CJJKQBK25w2A7 0UzuOd0Jdi2FO10zPtTIScf33P7r
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyC3CxwLstg5OVQek9xVgiZ9EX+Zh4YICQuCLVAaoo0/fQhikKCCpd7+WemWksdb9uauVpX8Q==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f310:: with SMTP id i16mr5878399wro.326.1582723343078; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id a16sm3173146wrx.87.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
From: Stewart Bryant <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:22:22 +0000
Cc: Stewart Bryant <>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <>, IETF Rinse Repeat <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB08431E138262F2A43C1D0621AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB0843939F3B38426960A66E70AE130@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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 13:22:30 -0000

> On 26 Feb 2020, at 13:03, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
> 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).

People buy 2G only devices and getting them out of the network and recovering the spectrum is a problem.