Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
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 955A512944E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:17:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 ImHFG421Z6nm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com (mail-it0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]) (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 556C2127137 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id f187so10319500itb.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:17:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NZyytEGQdh69YRcl83AUxxmm+JKQFkhoggkchysLhFc=; b=fkrI2o0y5qX8eit8yJypFfzapgSgMQ0YRaDcYFkUh6urAsZHVDJlHqBPnpx0Pbxl4X vY0d0meRFXrmFpzpiAqBV8gn0ipxZLKS0+Bukj61PhT+msErv49oaIbFpwjOSO/4Y+F3 IYhAFNdILVAjMQptVs9IkHwf8Kr8jJWkpZok6FlOKgN4d2jEoSHUQzyxzaJjeBDQNMn2 rWSd/s+OqC/MGGrhaB/gqnIN8sTkkV0QFGWxFSU66Lehlluj7M4A5sE/MbHI7fZ6Ezla cxcWt4Z8GVoOaBydI5lesA45is2WpnC/f8hsXs8hKf6gtMLBK4jxgI9/2SRu6AgmtvBC omug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NZyytEGQdh69YRcl83AUxxmm+JKQFkhoggkchysLhFc=; b=OSKZnzil/IBlAREjKLW2lufmJmxustteDHc8WOfUQ7puL4kqcXhKtT37X5JeSuVniI +2lW8CiXF2EohCeTbLlGiR4Gta1ycKOkTgo4bXpl5N6gEcU3tmwxqjnWtm3iCEMgF4W6 Av+h8nJKG3i/55j11mO7gODpOr8s6ryjeMqSEwe12+10wRjncXV+pfh0plrhDaeNvODX GgNYGO9GcWrne7IUvh4DfI3EAe38tNeFkuCVxV33swt0sP/hH3Gj9a76Ix3wxZbmwpQq zFEIEkhsTslxyi8lu3Ucad2oaTLvwcCb30jytl6sLXiv7MUQA8vzJTAAl1uNHBeHlb0k tr5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6wn2uqUxZrbMsS1oRz7kQFosU/yYXQa7p4NSAmE87v2bXm4nTF DB3ZzXMnhxKRVGabnBuBE2/GCQoZxQGjJ8W4soZE5xuq
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZXDb0YFAwXGrHBedTMCDr/IFiYK+PhJOJ7oT+JKoPHaSP3GS/GpLiRxljYqgmhj3qee+jXI/lutzBLfOofXvo=
X-Received: by 10.36.26.206 with SMTP id 197mr11281534iti.88.1510593425222; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:17:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.82.19 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:16:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:16:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr39jbxHGhzn001UDJC=RB+dTm7GHOK7D3--hzT7Pd9Ryw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114457ec8394c5055de07055"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6hoHC9wetZF3TLQq-bqoPEYr_u8>
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, 13 Nov 2017 17:17:07 -0000

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Philip Homburg <
pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>; wrote:
>
> When IPv6-only eyeball networks appear that don't offer any kind of IPv4
> connectivity, content providers either add support for IPv6 or they lose
> that
> group of potential customers.
>

And how are those eyeball networks going to enter the market, given that
they don't provide access to IPv4 content but their competitors do? Seems
that they can only do that if pretty much all content is available over
IPv6. That leaves us stuck at the chicken and egg problem again.