Re: [v6ops] sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 30/03/2021 à 17:12, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
> We can't and must not take out IPv4 in "client OSs" unless you are 
> 100% sure that they will never need to connect to another IPv4 
> "whatever" in the other end of Internet. It will be a bad practice, 
> especially for non-technically aware people using those systems.

Sounds as a balance to be made between who to put on IPv6.

I think the client OSs did already enough on their part to move to IPv6
but some servers still insist to run on IPv4.

> The relevance is what is the cost and implications for operators. If
>  they can get rid-off IPv4 in the core, or the access or any other 
> part of the network (or several of them), that has many advantages, 
> and money talks.

Well, on one hand it is good to use as much as possible what is already
deployed - maximise the cost effectiveness.  Use IPv4 in the core.

But in addition to cost considerations at existing operators there might
be a new operator around the corner.  Such an incumbent might get
confused about this 'IPv6-only' term.  That ideal operator wanting to
deploy from scratch should not bother about 'IPv6-only' terms, not even
about 'dual-stack'.

'Dual' is oftentimes understood as an intrication of two things that
cant be disentagled: wave and particle of light, 0 and 1 in qubits,
civilian and military uses.  In that sense, a 'dual stack' made of IPv4
and IPv6 necessitates to continue that way for a long time, maybe
forever, which is, probably, little desirable.

On another hand, a 'heavy stack' made of an essential IP protocol and a
superfluous old IPv4 stack could be seen as subject of evolution where
IPv4 would disappear.

Alex

> 
> 
> 
> El 30/3/21 16:55, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" 
> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> 
> escribió:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 30/03/2021 à 16:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>> I disagree, it may be different interfaces.
> 
> This is right.
> 
>> It may be an IPv6-only VPN on top of a dual stack "physical" 
>> interface, etc., etc.
> 
> I see.
> 
>> It is necessary to describe the specific context to be accurate 
>> when we say "IPv6-only".
> 
> Some times it looks like a never ending story.
> 
> As it stands now, I wonder why we still speak about IPv6-only when 
> IPv4 is there everywhere anyways.
> 
> Still, there are FreeBSD computers whose IPv4 stack has been
> stripped off of the kernel, and Windows machines that turned off IPv4
> from some interfaces.  But, strangely enough, it is not these
> computers that we call 'IPv6-only'.
> 
> What we seem to be calling 'IPv6-only' is the linux-based
> smartphones whose IPv4 stack is still in them.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> El 30/3/21 14:14, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" 
>> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]>
>>  escribió:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 30/03/2021 à 13:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>> You only need IPv4 support if the other side of the communication
>>> is IPv4-only.
>>> 
>>> I read RFC6540, in this context as if the app, protocol,
>>> service, etc. will work if IPv4 is disabled.
>>> 
>>> So this is true in all the IPv6-only mechanisms, because 
>>> precisely the idea is to make sure that if at some point there 
>>> are no more "IPv4-only whatever", it will still work.
>> 
>> We cant talk about IPv6-only and IPv4 at the same time in the same
>>  computer.
>> 
>> The point is to make sure that IPv6 works ok without IPv4.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> El 30/3/21 12:08, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" 
>>> <[e-mail] en nombre de 
>>> [e-mail]> escribió:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 30/03/2021 à 09:44, Giuseppe Fioccola a écrit :
>>>> Hi Alexandre, Yes, the main scope is to describe the global 
>>>> IPv6 deployment and provide an overview on how the transition 
>>>> to IPv6 is progressing, indeed the draft is informational. 
>>>> Anyway, according to the statistics and to the surveys, it can
>>>>  be possible to make some general considerations and report 
>>>> transition challenges in order to encourage actions in the 
>>>> areas identified (e.g. section "Call for action").
>>> 
>>> I agree.
>>> 
>>> However, I have a doubt.  At a point this draft says:
>>> 
>>> "It is recommended that all networking standards assume the use 
>>> of IPv6 and be written so they do not require IPv4 ([RFC6540])."
>>> 
>>> Incidentally, I agree with the recommendation, but it is still
>>> an advice.  If we want to not put an advice then we dont put it,
>>> end of phrase.
>>> 
>>> Besides, the paragraph above sounds great, and I agree with it. 
>>> But it refers to RFC6540.  That RFC is great, and is a BCP.
>>> 
>>> But in detail, it (RFC6540) says this, among other things that 
>>> are ok:
>>>> To ensure interoperability and flexibility, the best practices
>>>>  are as follows:
>>>> 
>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>> o  New and updated IP networking implementations should
>>>> support IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but must not
>>>> require IPv4 for proper and complete function.
>>> 
>>> This requirement is great, but in practice, 464XLAT needs IPv4
>>> in order to work.  So the 'must not require IPv4 for proper and 
>>> complete function' is not respected.
>>> 
>>> A smartphone that is qualified as 'IPv6-only' by many still has 
>>> an IPv4 stack in it and still runs IPv4 software.
>>> 
>>> That is a problem.
>>> 
>>> This might represent a basis that - when shaken - goes up to the
>>>  'it is recommended' of this draft that I mentioned earlier.
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Giuseppe
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops 
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre
>>>> Petrescu Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 6:48 PM To:
>>>> [e-mail] Subject: [v6ops] sense of
>>>> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>>>> 
>>>> I wanted to ask whether the sense of the intention of 
>>>> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment is:
>>>> 
>>>> - to describe deployment?
>>>> 
>>>> - or to give advice about what the deployment should be?
>>>> 
>>>> For my part, I think it should solely describe deployment.
>>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>>> list [e-mail] 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are 
>>> you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you
>> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you 
> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>