RE: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------