Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Fully agree with Ole, but not in one specific point …

-> We want a situation where IPv4 only services are fronted by IPv6, and the cost born by those operating those services.

I don’t see an easy way for people with IPv4-only services to pay for the cost. If I’m an ISP and want to connect customers to Internet, even if I deploy IPv6, if I don’t provide myself a NAT64 (probably together with CLAT at the CEs), my customers will go away, because I’ve no solution to “charge” the cost of my NAT64 to the “bad and outdated” service providers that rely only in IPv4 (and IPv4-only DNSSEC).

Also, if I want customers that have IPv4-only devices at home, I still need to provide some sort of IPv4-as-a-service for that.

If we pretend that to happen, either we find a *real* way to make responsibles of the cost to the “ugly” content providers, or we will fail again as we failed assuming that dual-stack will be deployed at the right time so we can turn-off IPv4.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Responder a: <otroan@employees.org>
Fecha: domingo, 19 de noviembre de 2017, 1:03
Para: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Asunto: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

    Brian,

    > To be clear: I used ietf-nat64 all week, and all the things that didn't work
    > are not an issue on a dual-stack network. From the host's point of view,
    > dual-stack is definitively superior, IMNSHO, and nothing is going to
    > change that. NAT64 is second-best. It may appear to be cheaper for some
    > operators in some scenarios, that's all.

    From that perspective, "IPv4 only" is still best. But that's not where we want to be, is it?

    The original transition plan was for all networks, hosts and application to be dual-stacked, then when that point was reached, there would be no more traffic on the "IPv4 Internet" and it could be turned off. We now know that this point is not within sight.

    Dual-stack as a transition is a failure. Dual-stack is a deployment model where we bear the cost caused by the IPv4 laggards.

    IPv6 only + NAT64 is progress. It relegates IPv4 to the edges.
    We want a situation where IPv4 only services are fronted by IPv6, and the cost born by those operating those services.

    The challenge we have in front of us is to make IPv6 only work.

    Ole

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    ipv6@ietf.org
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
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.