Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 20 November 2017 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 17C5512EA8D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:52:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 jIS2whlfs4QR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:52:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89F41204DA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:52:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D77B2D512A; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:52:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71BB6200CC5471; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:52:36 +0100 (CET)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <82952FDF-0AA3-49EF-B3A6-1FAA61FC5C01@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C6E2CF8E-CCA4-4E3C-AE8E-1DAC2DC5291B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:52:35 +0100
In-Reply-To: <f673d6c7-570e-b2b8-e8aa-15d73ea8ba3f@gmail.com>
Cc: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_6c-pA3BWBUr9sojiNvjj-TGmNg>
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, 20 Nov 2017 19:52:43 -0000

> ...>> [Med] These are generic statements, Ole. We are talking about the IETF case.
>>> * The IETF has no control on the hosts that connect to the IETF network,
>>> * IETF attendees who are using corporate devices, have no control on these hosts
>>> 
>>> So, how forcing devices to use "IPv6+nat64" will help here?
>> 
>> Eat own dogfood. Many IETF people are developers or work for companies having applications not working.
>> As I said there were a minimum of applications that didn't work. Corporate VPNs largely did. Jen has the final numbers.
> 
> However, as long as even one application, such as one VPN, or one
> literal IPv4 address, fails, that represents millions of failure cases
> if we consider the whole world (e.g. imagine every hotel network in
> the world running IPv6+NAT64 only). That simply isn't viable. Dual
> stack in every hotel room in the world is viable, from the hotel guests'
> point of view. Operators might not like it, but users wouldn't care.

Nor would they if the hotel room was IPv4 only...
Would they?

Ole