Re: [v6ops] [sunset4] IPv4 trajectory
"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 15:20 UTC
Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
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 152E71A8798; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 BgvIX4mqVS8N; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A86F1A8777; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,550,1422939600"; d="scan'208";a="851854562"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 09 Apr 2015 11:05:59 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS10.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.40]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:20:22 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 11:20:26 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sunset4] [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory
Thread-Index: AdBy2LJ8cVZsi0zoS0KflxyLWDnfCQ==
Message-ID: <D14C0670.4CC7F%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1-AuRDTQ7ANs5oPZyvBnFWTbLTk>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [sunset4] IPv4 trajectory
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: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:20:26 -0000
I think you mean "it is *not* feasible" in 3.4 Generally, I think updates to the transition guidance are somewhat useful, at least acknowledging that due to the limited amount of IPv4 address space available, the notion of continued parallel support for IPv4 such that you can provide truly native dual-stack is going to become increasingly difficult without one or more life-support options. We're not here to judge the presence of those life-support options as good, bad, or indifferent as much as we are to acknowledge that reality. I know that I have given guidance in reviews of several recent documents and given other presentations to socialize the idea that IPv6-only isn't an all-or-nothing thing, and that some services and devices can move there much quicker for various reasons, such that you may end up with islands or certain services that are no longer dependent on IPv4 long before you can truly turn it off completely. I've also drawn the parallel to the SNA to IP transition, where people installed gateways that allowed the portion of the network that supported legacy SNA to be very small (i.e. Right in front of the offending mainframe) and the rest of the network, including all remote hosts transition to IP. I see a similar thing happening with some legacy IPv4-only things, where a specific ALG is deployed to enable it to speak IPv6 so that you can have IPv6-only hosts access it without having to do wider IPv6<-> IPv4 transition or deploy IPv4 to a bunch of hosts solely to support that application. That said, I'm not sure whether this draft has a lot new to say when considered with recent documents like Enterprise Incremental (7381), and I think it'd be more useful to consider something that has more limited scope, and only discusses the transition to IPv6-only in greater detail. Thanks, Wes Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it. ----------- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
- [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Lee Howard
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Erik Nygren
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Templin, Fred L
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory joel jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Ca By
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Bjoern A. Zeeb
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory James Woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Bjoern A. Zeeb
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory James Woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory George, Wes
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory Xing Li
- Re: [v6ops] [sunset4] IPv4 trajectory George, Wes