Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 21 November 2017 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 284A412EAEF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:07:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 9k8glksEisZE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 F30BB12EAE9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:07:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6FE19B1; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:07:20 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1511244440; bh=Y4Cy5gBD5vQzDRx/YXq2wvb6GRsgWQDrM3ISWHQ1DiQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bWPPzMC+7AIcbsCrcmnkcwd2g7EhjIA3t7fqzEdMwNO70N2pYUGRD+1FMr8Hp4R+b qKZhz6RjNR/oyiRjUrQiXr0yVtjUBrTTTLy4OlC+W6dFRzF3dLLZ57xpse1hKfqpkq OcWULtIRd8yDjZ8Rtr8ZgdifAT5nONbNOXYmHQg8=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582E0B0; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:07:20 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:07:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
cc: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
In-Reply-To: <D638AAD2.8C6F2%lee@asgard.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711210704280.32099@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <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> <e697e64116f245f0b462a1a2277c704b@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D638AAD2.8C6F2%lee@asgard.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-2062346328-1511244440=:32099"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zazwAsVdo8f3d3RBX_J-vjTmHIw>
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 06:07:25 -0000

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Lee Howard wrote:

> It’s too late for dual-stack to be the transition plan.

Well, I wouldn't say that. Let's augment instead:

1. IPv4
2. Dual stack
3. IPv6

What we have discovered is that step 3 won't be reached anytime soon 
because too many people are stuck at 1.

So to give people who want to go to 3 for their access, we need them to be 
able to realise 2 by means of v4aaS.

So for me the plan is still "interop between IPv4 and IPv6" but it might 
not be dual stack everywhere, instead it's v4aaS. Because long tail is 
long.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se