RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

"Manfredi, Albert E" <> Mon, 20 November 2017 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DDA126DFB for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:59:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8MFCEEh3P5zh for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FE30124BFA for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id vAKKxndG023720; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:59:50 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id vAKKxlDs023703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:59:47 -0700
Received: from (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by (2002:8988:efac::8988:efac) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:59:46 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:59:46 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <>
To: Jen Linkova <>
CC: 6man WG <>
Subject: RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Thread-Topic: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:59:46 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07C625@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D481@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D534@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D63D@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:59:53 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Jen Linkova [] 

> People from the real world is coming to IETF saying 'we are deploying
> Ipv6-only hosts' [1] [2]


Okay. So, people can follow whatever approach they prefer, but my first reaction was that switching over to IPv6 *by location* seems an odd way to go about it. If it were up to me, I'd say not to use that model. It's more a matter of end to end functions used, by hosts in a given subnet. If a given subnet can demonstrate that all of its hosts' needs can be met, end to end, with IPv6 only, then great. Shut off IPv4 in that one subnet. But "end to end" sessions are frequently not confined to one location, and it also seems unlikely that all hosts in all subnets, in a given location, have the same needs.

The hotel model that Brian offered seems to reflect what should be the most generic reality. Diverse devices, diverse needs, location isn't the primary factor to be considered. I realize that there's some sort of management appeal, to make this a "by location" issue.