RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Masanobu Kawashima <kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com> Tue, 21 November 2017 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.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 886C9126C23 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:11:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 jeZitmFc2l2Q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tyo162.gate.nec.co.jp (tyo162.gate.nec.co.jp [114.179.232.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76B6E1201F2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgate02.nec.co.jp ([114.179.233.122]) by tyo162.gate.nec.co.jp (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id vAL4BPK2022900 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:11:25 +0900
Received: from mailsv02.nec.co.jp (mailgate-v.nec.co.jp [10.204.236.94]) by mailgate02.nec.co.jp (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id vAL4BPV2024049; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:11:25 +0900
Received: from mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.7]) by mailsv02.nec.co.jp (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id vAL4Ae6n013897; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:11:25 +0900
Received: from bpxc99gp.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.149] [10.38.151.149]) by mail02.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-4552791; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:11:03 +0900
Received: from BPXM24GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.216]) by BPXC21GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.149]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:11:02 +0900
From: Masanobu Kawashima <kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com>
To: "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Thread-Topic: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Thread-Index: AQHTX4U1kdVLYyQoy0SFVq2ZnvkKraMc5AXw//96jQCAABYJAIAADLsAgAAc7ICAABUUgIAAZL4AgAAJPgCAAACkAIABCKFg
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:11:01 +0000
Message-ID: <81A3232BEF82944C8F23DB1CFE276F0F494BDF1B@BPXM24GP.gisp.nec.co.jp>
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> <5DAEE862-0BD0-4DA6-AE7A-B4B6A2CAE617@consulintel.es> <D05E1703-9357-4BB2-B535-AEC23924281A@consulintel.es>
In-Reply-To: <D05E1703-9357-4BB2-B535-AEC23924281A@consulintel.es>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.3.141.9]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tkp4DIKzhZ7R7RchJO7Hdk7WAfU>
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 04:11:37 -0000

Hi Jordi, 

> At some point the NAT64 service, instead of being provided by the ISP it will make sense to be provided by third party
> companies, even if there is some extra delay to reach a remote NAT64, etc., and even if there is an extra cost for that
> customer that still requires it. 

In Japan, JPIX(Japan Internet Exchange) is providing 464XLAT trial service 
to ISPs. 
https://www.jpix.ad.jp/en/technical_exchange.php 

PLAT(NAT64 service) is providing from JPIX, then ISPs are using CLAT CPE. 
We might need this kind of service near future. 
Just FYI. :-) 

Regards, 
Masanobu 

==================================== 
 NEC Platforms, Ltd.                 
 Access-Device Division              
 KAWASHIMA Masanobu                  
 kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com            
 https://www.necplatforms.co.jp/en/  
==================================== 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 5:13 AM
> To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
> 
> And by the way …
> 
> At some point the NAT64 service, instead of being provided by the ISP it will make sense to be provided by third party
> companies, even if there is some extra delay to reach a remote NAT64, etc., and even if there is an extra cost for that
> customer that still requires it.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>; en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>; Responder a:
> <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>;
> Fecha: lunes, 20 de noviembre de 2017, 21:11
> Para: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>;
> Asunto: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
> 
>     It is clear to me that hotel rooms need to provide IPv6 + IPv4-as-a-service (for example using a CE or AP with CLAT).
> 
>     The hotel network or its access can be IPv6-only and then the ISP provide the NAT64.
> 
>     I’m sure someone will argue that this means perpetuating IPv4: Is not the case.
> 
>     The case is being realistic about what an ISP or an hotel or any other organizations NEEDs to provide to their customers
> if they want to keep them.
> 
>     If the hotels provide IPv6 + IPv4-as-a-service, the customer is happy and more and more traffic is moving from IPv4
> to IPv6 in a natural way.
> 
>     If some app developers don’t see it, or if some content providers or enterprises where the VPN is being connected,
> there will be a point where the IPv4 traffic is meaningless and they have the risk that at that point the IPv4-as-a-service
> is not offered anymore, not because the cost of the CLAT, but because the cost of the NAT64.
> 
>     The only way we can motivate all them to move to IPv6 is to make sure that when, for example 75% of the Internet traffic
> is IPv6, we clearly announce that IPv4 is historical, has not maintenance, and will be dropped and unsupported and will
> not be able to be reachable. It is the ISPs work to decide if they want to keep providing NAT64 or not, and to tell their
> customers. At some point, more and more ISPs will drop that service. Wherever that point is at the 75% of IPv6 traffic
> or 95% or something in the middle is to be decided by each ISP, also maybe depending on their competitors, etc.
> 
>     I recall a few years ago when a phone company in Spain still had a few customers with old “pulse disk phones”. They
> took the decision to cancel the contract to those customers if they don’t want to get the phone replaces with DTMF phones.
> 
>     Same today is happening with customers with ADSL where there is GPON coverage. You accept to be replaced to GPON,
> or they cancel the contract, because it is more expensive to keep a few “old fashioned” customers that the profit they
> generate.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Jordi
> 
> 
>     -----Mensaje original-----
>     De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>; en nombre de Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>;
>     Organización: University of Auckland
>     Responder a: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>;
>     Fecha: lunes, 20 de noviembre de 2017, 20:37
>     Para: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>;, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
>     CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>;, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>;
>     Asunto: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
> 
>         On 21/11/2017 02:36, Ole Troan wrote:
>         ...>> [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.
> 
>             Brian
> 
>         --------------------------------------------------------------------
>         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.
> 
> 
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------