IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 8B3A11A92BB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_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 hC-tPdDcipXJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED5B1A92B8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdrw1 with SMTP id w1so21444995pdr.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dCU4p8zJ/LShlJxQZA+1Qkl1fAtacdWmGh/QJKmJjbc=; b=DO6+sCptFrqW5lujJiXR/E6Nw64KsKCXPiId2azfsB9GjqOAsLdy6TqLJ5dD9CLsOI q20qmxdFvMofqbvpgYhMIqnfs4ZzdPBDdCPAhTFrV6ffvECWSi3JRyxFFgJVNv5ifsQs l6444IlSm6o55fzZdC3IOLpSfVV3ilyTqHLe4TT/ekCZogWbSbua33MMis/OE1N8Csh5 1rd9ARr8rS/FVW3Ug3udvsodynAC3s5Kf3r/+5OPnWNkkH6Pj3FkDFRbT3LVMzja5LkZ wATIogfTc/mVUEYlSDUD3SVMN0XnS+4z90PCkmayjHH8fpY+Df53NpMcI+cDbAxzaFMu vnjQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.221.34 with SMTP id qb2mr70889438pac.42.1427829045748; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6307:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6307:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yt8sm14096146pab.22.2015.03.31.12.10.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <551AF135.3060602@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:10:45 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <D1401A6F.90498%Lee@asgard.org>
In-Reply-To: <D1401A6F.90498%Lee@asgard.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4h5eLTQQR1D9pFle9z6jqaG5N90>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:10:47 -0000

On 01/04/2015 02:49, Lee Howard wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/31/15, 1:35 AM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

...
>> 3) IPv4+IPv6 (native) dual stack network

...
> Fewer and fewer networks will be doing step 3. If they aren't close to
> rolling out, they simply won't have the IPv4 address space to do native
> dual-stack. 

Clearly this is true. The original dual-stack model assumed that everybody
would be able to deploy IPng before IPv4 exhaustion.

However, I also wonder whether the transit and core operators, who carry
globally-addressed IPv4 traffic around for other networks, will eventually
move away from pure ships-in-the-night dual stack operation. For example,
will they eventually find it inconvenient to use IPv4 for "control plane"
purposes, and so use IPv6 for all network management? In that case they
will also be operating IPv4 only as a service.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email