RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

["Manfredi, Albert E" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter

> 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).

Very instructive thread for me, I must say. I'm getting this sense of urgency, to be rid of IPv4, but it comes from the IETF 6man wg and some ISPs. Ultimately, it's not up to 6man to decide. It's up to device vendors, and up to the deployed base of devices. The IETF can only suggest, and ISP networks have to meet the real world needs.

> Dual stack in every hotel room in the world is viable, from the
> hotel guests' point of view.

This seems the most practical answer, whether it's a client server model, such as in a hotel room, or a peer to peer network. In a mostly peer to peer network, the normal case would be for IPv6 hosts to be introduced gradually. I'm not sure how anything other than dual stack can work, in this case. If the goal is to have continuous robust operation of the network, during an indefinitely long transitional phase, because no one up the chain could care less about the nitty gritty, they just want everything to keep working flawlessly, then what motivation would there be for anything other than dual stack? The only practical solution is to introduce IPv6 hosts only if they are dual stack. And then carefully, on a case by case basis, individual subsystems that do not need to interoperate with IPv4 subsystems can shut off IPv4.

I realize that such transition drag on for years. But again, in the greater scheme of things, this matters very little to those who must make sure the systems work at all times.

Bert