IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT

"Metzler, Dan J" <dan-metzler@uiowa.edu> Fri, 13 February 2015 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dan-metzler@uiowa.edu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0171A1AC6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:37:11 -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_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 7p7XZAvgt1-v for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0755.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:755]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 716811A1A8F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO2PR04MB587.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.196.150) by CO2PR04MB716.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.229.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.81.19; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:36:45 +0000
Received: from CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.196.139) by CO2PR04MB587.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.196.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.81.19; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:36:44 +0000
Received: from CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.196.139]) by CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.196.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0081.018; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:36:44 +0000
From: "Metzler, Dan J" <dan-metzler@uiowa.edu>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "Heatley, Nick" <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT
Thread-Index: AQHQRuDwg1fzpxhvcUOCHDFyDxLETJzuJKAAgAA4+wCAACxpgIAABhmAgAAWtgCAABChgIAAF2sAgAA2ZOA=
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:36:44 +0000
Message-ID: <CO2PR04MB585D13C4AC1DE105E8E9BBDFE230@CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150212124226.3282.9774.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54DCD464.3000907@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490A7DD@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA4B0@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <54DDF37D.1050405@gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA605@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <54DE0BA8.8020908@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490AEF6@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <54DE2D40.50908@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DE2D40.50908@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.55.230.66]
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR04MB587;UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR04MB587;
x-forefront-prvs: 0486A0CB86
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(164054003)(51704005)(13464003)(377454003)(54356999)(66066001)(89122001)(19580405001)(76576001)(50986999)(76176999)(93886004)(86362001)(74316001)(46102003)(106116001)(77156002)(88552001)(2501002)(230783001)(75432002)(92566002)(2900100001)(102836002)(2950100001)(15975445007)(122556002)(40100003)(77096005)(99286002)(90282001)(87936001)(33656002)(2656002)(19580395003)(62966003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR04MB587; H:CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Feb 2015 21:36:44.4379 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 1bc44595-9aba-4fc3-b8ec-7b94a5586fdc
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR04MB587
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR04MB716;
X-OriginatorOrg: uiowa.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-T3__anQdUhdZEYdHOTaB2rGvVA>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:37:12 -0000

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:59 AM
> To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Heatley, Nick
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt -
> C_REC#9 464XLAT
> 
<snip/>
> 
> > Some operators are seeing CLAT as critical because they don't want to
> > have a service disruption compared to IPv4 when IPv6-only connectivity
> > is provided to their customers.
> 
> I agree about the criticality of IPv4 apps when IPv6-only connectivity is in
> place.
> 
> But why should there be IPv6-only connectivity in place today for the masses?

Because whether it exists today, or not, that's the goal we are working toward.  It's far too late to be designing things based on some assumption that IPv6-only connectivity doesn't have to actually work anyway.  The ultimate goal is IPv6-only connectivity for the masses, and if we make no other assumptions, we ought to be able to start with the assumption that at least works to all internet connected IPv6 endpoints.

> 
> Nobody but some ultra-geek do this IPv6-only today.

Ouch!

> 
> Even if the operator's network is IPv6 only, it should have means to translate
> between v4 and v6 at its edges, such as to show pure IPv4 and pure IPv6 t
> user.
> 

I think we should stay away from assumptions like this.  If no one is going to mandate that all ISPs MUST provide IPv6 connectivity, (and that hasn't happened yet), then it doesn't seem like we can make assumptions about where the translation needs to happen.

<snip/>

Thanks,

- Dan (part time ultra-geek I guess)

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email