Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - "Transition to IPv6"

[Clark Gaylord <[e-mail]>]

It seems to me the context of the OMB guidance is relevant to the question
of "IPv6-only". The draft memo is reasonably good at this, but succinctly
something like "agency internal networks use single-stack IPv6 with any
external connectivity supporting IPv6. External connectivity that requires
connectivity to legacy Internet hosts can be accomplished via appropriate
gateway technologies such as NAT64". A provision for "specific applications
where IPv6 is not supportable may be able to use internal gateway
technologies such as 464XLAT with a plan for migration to support IPv6
natively." These aren't exact quotes, just my suggested ideas, but this
seems to capture the spirit of the initiative.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:30 AM [e-mail] <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Jordi,
> First , I agree with you that the definition of IPv6-only needs to
> consider the what part of the network we are referring to, for example,
> ISP network, IDC, Cloud platform and Service system should have their own
> specific definition of IPv6-only.  I hope this draft can go on.
> Secondly. for ISP network, the definition of IPv6 should be based on
> whether it can allocates only IPv6 addresses to most of its customers for
> service provisioning, if yes, it can be consider as IPv6-only. If it
> allocates IPv4 address to most of its customers, then it is not IPv6-only.
> My personal opionion is that the definition should not be based on whether
> to eliminate IPv4 protocol in the network.  At present stage, it is
> unrealistic to eliminate IPv4 protocol in most networks, for the networks
> still need to provide access service to some customers who do not support
> IPv6-only due to their poor-capability CPE or terminals. Moreever, some
> networks still need to use IPv4 for network management . If the
> definition it too strict, I guess none of the network can meet the
> standard, including those who have deplyed 464XLAT. In addition, an
> IPv6-only network should be open and interconnected with OTTs and other
> ISPs, some closed system, such as VoLTE in mobile network, should not be
> consider as IPv6-only, even though it only allocates IPv6 addresses to it
> customer.
>
> Best regards
> Chongfeng
>
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>
> *Date:* 2020-03-06 02:12
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - "Transition to IPv6"
> If you read my draft, my opinion is different:
>
>   Definition of IPv6-only
>
>    Consequently, considering the context described in the section above,
>    if we want to be precise and avoid confusing others, we can not use
>    the terminology "IPv6-only" in a generic way, and we need to define
>    what part of the network we are referring to.
>
>    From that perspective, we define the "IPv6-only" status in a given
>    part(s) of a network, depending on if there is actual native
>    forwarding of IPv4, so IPv4 is not configured neither managed.
>
> So IPv4 may be not configured, or not used natively, but there is no way
> to prevent that "is there" by means of tunneling of translation.
>
> *unless* you make sure that any encapsulation or translation is filtered,
> which is close to impossible.
>
> Because we disagree, it seems clear that this document is needed.
>
> So if anyone has inputs, I will consider them in a new version during the
> weekend.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
> El 5/3/20 17:46, "v6ops en nombre de Owen DeLong" <[e-mail]
> en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>
>
>
>     > On Mar 5, 2020, at 6:02 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>     >
>     > Thank you very much for the pointer.  In it I could spot
>     > the following footnote: "[4] IPv6-Only refers to network
> environments in
>     > which use of the IPv4 protocol has been eliminated.”
>
>     No.
>
>     IPv6-Only refers to network environments which are not using IPv4.
> That could be a network where IPv4 has been eliminated (rare at this time,
> though Facebook is a significant example) or it could be a greenfield
> deployment where IPv4 was never deployed.
>
>     >
>     > In my humble opinion,
>     >
>     > I think, if I am not wrong, that there are no such networks in which
>     > IPv4 protocol has been eliminated.  On one hand, a network is made of
>     > computers, and IPv4 stacks are still present in almost all computers.
>     > On another hand, there might be some ptp links (not networks, but
>     > individual links) that run IPv6 only.
>
>     You are wrong… There are examples at various levels of IPv6-only
> networks. Many mobile carriers are IPv6-only in the US, though they do
> provide some apparent IPv4 capability to the end user through mechanisms
> such as 464XLAT and/or NAT64.
>
>     Another significant example is Facebook where they are essentially
> IPv6-only throughout their network and provide minimal IPv4 translation
> shim at the edge to cope with end users that lack IPv6 capability.
>
>     > That is why it is hard to agree on the assumption of IPv4 being
> eliminated somewhere.  Worse, it makes look as if the goal of that
> 'IPv6-only' is to arrive at that same situation which in fact does use IPv4.
>
>     As a general rule, once IPv6 is ubiquitously deployed in a network,
> the preservation of IPv4 in the majority of that network becomes an
> unnecessary cost factor and a security risk (increased attack surface, if
> nothing else). As such, I think you will see an increasing number of
> organizations follow on to the way Facebook has managed their transition
> and start eliminating IPv4 wherever possible and replacing it with
> translation shims as far out towards the border as practical.
>
>     Owen
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>


-- 
Clark Gaylord
[e-mail]