IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Adoption call for <draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64-02>

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 59B04130E19; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:03:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GlSH4lrrZ7hH; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63B83130DFA; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 439gPZ6wFMzywp; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:03:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.59]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 439gPZ5zmYzyPk; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:03:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::ec23:902:c31f:731c%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:03:30 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
CC: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Adoption call for <draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64-02>
Thread-Topic: Adoption call for <draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64-02>
Thread-Index: AQHUjW+XZTZFIKfo9UqUAsUqaDdg8aVx2YtQ
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 16:03:29 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E0546BC@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <BD1717B3-C013-4718-9140-283F312C1634@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E053EE7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr1vD4QS7Ea42nQXCfLF-Ri6SsP8n=1BGft44iDkZyYuyg@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E054363@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr3d924A74V84e8_N0AetH5_hnRtVhXa0aGU6bKScuCwqQ@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E054483@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr0F7DVnjB+AHXZyUpCUUbjo8tt7uKxMLm10=zkuURa3Vg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0F7DVnjB+AHXZyUpCUUbjo8tt7uKxMLm10=zkuURa3Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E0546BCOPEXCLILMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZbEOwczhchvO48uIWqVPSUwsVgM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 16:03:40 -0000

Lorenzo,

I’m clear in what I said: IPv4aas “is not a mandatory IPv6 feature”. You misinterpreted this as: “it is not a mandatory to provide service”, which isn’t what I said!

As far as I know, IPv4 service continuity is not considered as mandatory feature in any IPv6 profile documents endorsed by the IETF:

·         No mention in RFC6434

·         Idem for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09>

·         SHOULD is used for DS-Lite in RFC7084

·         SHOULD is used in draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas

·         No mention in the 3GPP IPv6 profile RFC7066 (but a prefix discovery is a SHOULD in RFC7849).

My initial set of issues are still unanswered, Lorenzo.

Cheers,
Med

De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 6 décembre 2018 15:26
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
Cc : Ole Troan; IETF IPv6 Mailing List; 6man Chairs
Objet : Re: Adoption call for <draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64-02>

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:10 PM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
The NAT64 prefix *is* a IPv6 configuration parameter. It is required for address synthesis, DNSSEC support, and 464xlat provisioning.
[Med] It is a parameter for a service provided over IPv6, if you will. That service is not a mandatory IPv6 feature. Moreover, requiring all access routers to be upgraded to support IPv4 service continuity is not a good plan from a deployment standpoint.

Access to the IPv4 Internet is not a mandatory IPv6 feature? That's a bold statement. Try deploying a truly IPv6-only network without IPv4 and see how many of your customers complain :-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email