Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Jordi,

As noted, I am not opposed, but think that it may not be a clear cut.

For your item 1, I guess that could work, but in the case where there is a
service which may be absolutely needed, and if not available on IPv6, would
a given government be willing to cause harm in pursuit of a preference or
long term agenda?

For item 2, good points except - however in the case of iPv4 and IPv6 as it
applies to global networking,  it may be more nuanced than, DTV and
therefore not as clear cut.

Please note, I am a firm supporter of IPv6 deployments and have led
deployment initiatives in multiple networks.  I am definitely in the choir,
but I also look at things from a practical angle.

regards,

Victor K



On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:49 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> At some point some degree of government involvement is needed. For example:
>
>
>
>    1. Now: Governments should not buy anything that doesn’t support IPv6.
>    They manage public resources, and it will be against our taxes, if they buy
>    any service, transit, hardware or software that doesn’t work today in
>    dual-stack and tomorrow as IPv6-only.
>    2. Next future: Governments have the obligation to protect consumers.
>    Example: When DTV is setup in every country, governments ban after some
>    time, importing/manufacturing/selling products that don’t support DTV,
>    otherwise consumers are cheated. At some point, in countries where the
>    industry/retails are not moving by themselves, some governments may need to
>    take similar decisions with IPv4-only products.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 20/2/20 13:30, "ietf en nombre de Victor Kuarsingh" <
> [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>
>
>
>  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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]> on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:00:58 AM
> > To: IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>
> > 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" <[e-mail]
> en nombre de [e-mail] <[e-mail]>>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >     Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:11 PM
> >     To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
> >     Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>
> >     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: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.
>
>