Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 20 November 2017 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E651128B93 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:35:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 yijryaNM2oR4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:35:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42334128B8F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:35:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 14167B0; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:35:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1511159702; bh=+gdvhJJJb2taGn8nl98jYSwFkeofvuosETAjdpK8tbg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=2MsbUYR3VeP+/YKOBkSLo0IHojQ6/1Rnlxvt1VgZqetCgNP9bb8bAnsyd4EdzQbrB zsiDjWXY8JPSkkwmmXzJ5GD7HChNootu/wUNHhb/WCsWxTl6/4JnzNC+cUM4BQWKsu zv53BCHFDceOhQYoou+kXs7QyMgc6zsiv3QZzDqM=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE159F; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:35:02 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:35:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
In-Reply-To: <83B04565-4A62-47AE-90FA-13F9254C5A1C@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711200731270.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <m1eEHPS-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <59B0BEC0-D791-4D75-906C-84C5E423291B@employees.org> <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com> <CAFU7BARaJHKOyrD1KAeorbYQwgsmxBLk1QELH+wZ4=HDCP1q-w@mail.gmail.com> <8470b00f-ecc5-0a63-fd8f-a4e2f65a005d@gmail.com> <CFDD8D9E-0726-46C1-9CC7-5C88DD111E9D@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711190939290.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se> <83B04565-4A62-47AE-90FA-13F9254C5A1C@isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-2103843934-1511159702=:32099"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4XPfF3F4oDSb6FdXretbUlypnp4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:35:07 -0000

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Mark Andrews wrote:

> Well as this stage you can say that there are ISP that are deploying IPv6-only on
> the access network with DS-Lite to provide IPv4 as a service.  If you want your
> host to be able to connect directly to such ISPs you need to add support to detect
> that DS-Lite is in use (a IPv6 DHCP option) and bring up a IPv4 in IPv6 tunnel to
> the ISPs B4 router.

Most ds-lite networks are DOCSIS networks, and no host can connect 
directly to that. They'll end up behind a router, which will give the host 
a dual stack service. Sure, you can bridge the modem but the expectation 
is still that you'll connect a ds.lite capable router to that.

> You stop talk ipv6-only and start talking ipv6-only access + ipv4 as a service.

Same thing. Not helping.

> It’s only a “catch 22” because people fail to look at the options 
> available.  ISPs are going ipv6-only access + ipv4 as a service because 
> it is easier to manage than dual stack access + 44CGN.  Many ISPs 
> deliver CPE routers that support DS-Lite so the customer still see IPv4 
> + IPv6.

No, ISPs are not doing that, because hosts do not work properly in this 
scenario. iOS and Android does, but nothing else. So the "else" software 
vendors can just sit back, do nothing and play chicken race.

> The question to host vendors is “do you want your machines to be able to 
> connect directly to ISP’s that have ipv6-only access networks or not?” 
> Ipv6-only access networks are a reality.

I doubt vendors get any feature requests to support this scenario. When 
it doesn't work, people will blame the ISP. This means ISPs won't deply 
this.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se