Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 21 November 2017 06:16 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 7ED9612EB24 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:16:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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] 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 3hHiBcQLgGwr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 97A6A127333 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2A08DB1; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:16:49 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1511245009; bh=nQmQYMYYgDCI4UPyl3kYCc3iufAh1inrL3wrJHZUyvk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bDvAxOYUitew95p3IzZyV0KlS7TwgbB4g6FPCgiA8FgLa/K1SZMlsVHHdP1Ia9CO+ hMRVSYdiylV5qe4rs59JbKu6wN/b4fSvcvzAvKMRWgL+fu8x0D1s4Yc8E0nEkd0fdz DdaylCwJP798Mbo1yexUkyXzBIONnxrotICRy2xs=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12305B0; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:16:49 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:16:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
In-Reply-To: <200AD734-6AEC-4CE9-A921-B9555821B646@employees.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711210709080.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAFU7BARoXgodiTJfTGc1dUfQ8-ER_r8UOE1c3h-+G0KTeCgBew@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07C625@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7EE41034-132E-45F0-8F76-6BA6AFE3E916@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D481@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <0C83562D-859B-438C-9A90-2480BB166737@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D534@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <26A31D20-46C2-473E-9565-59E5BA85ED8B@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D63D@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <F9E3BD88-38E0-4329-A4BF-22083A023268@employees.org> <f673d6c7-570e-b2b8-e8aa-15d73ea8ba3f@gmail.com> <e697e64116f245f0b462a1a2277c704b@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D638AAD2.8C6F2%lee@asgard.org> <3a20ce57-2a61-bca3-9e25-6d4c38c12888@gmail.com> <200AD734-6AEC-4CE9-A921-B9555821B646@employees.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/AR_fiZzoir-Hj96-M-a-Zv9a0ts>
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 06:16:52 -0000

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Ole Troan wrote:

> Brian,
>
>> One thing that we demonstrated very convincingly last week
>> is that there are enough legacy devices and applications in
>> existing user hosts that the co-existence plan is still needed.
>> (And, BTW, we demonstated it for user hosts belonging to
>> relatively sophisticated users.)
>
> Huh?
> Data please.

Oh, come on.

For me:

Mosh didn't work (it's single stack once it's connected)
Steam doesn't work (even on Win10). I have no idea how many games do not 
work (because I can't start them), but I'd bet it's A LOT.
Nothing on my corporate VM works (because Parallels does IPv4 NAT, and 
needs to be explicitly configured to be bridged to some NIC/wifi to even 
get the RS on the outside). My VPN doesn't work even if I bridge. Software 
update on Win7 doesn't work on IPv6 only.

These are just things I myself discovered. Yes, getting the VPNs working 
might be a good step (because they'd now be v4aaS) but saying 
v6-only+NAT64 or something, is a viable option in the near future for 
99.9% of users, that's just being silly.

Yes, Jen probably can do it because her employer uses Chrome as its main 
tool for getting anything done. Personally I have in the neighborhood of a 
hundred applications running on my Mac. If I had a windows 7 machine 
as my only environemnt (because enterprise), things would be even worse.

The mass of installed things on devices that need ipv4 literals to work is 
staggering, especially in the long tail. So without bump-in-the-API or 
CLAT, this just won't work in the next 10 years.

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