Re: [v6ops] IPv6 mostly for DS-Lite

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Masanobu!

> I'd like to share my CLAT experience. 
> 
>> I see David posted a draft trying to improve on 464XLAT troubleshooting-ness.
>> Would be interesting to hear implementors perspective on implementing 464XLAT CLAT so it supports 2.
> 
> As one of the implementors and as a co-author of 464XLAT(RFC 6877), 
> I have enough CLAT experience with CE router. 
> That's why I think 464XLAT is simpler than DS-Lite at troubleshooting 
> perspective. 
> 
> I've shared my experience on the chat while v6ops WG session. 
> We implemented IPv4/IPv6 mixed traceroute. Please see slide 13. 
> https://conference.apnic.net/34/pdf/34th_apnic_464xlat.pdf 
> 
> If host OS also implement similar IPv4/IPv6 mixed traceroute, 
> we can do more simple troubleshooting. 
> IPv4 address is embedded on CLAT IPv6 address. It is also simple.

The mixed traceroute is very nice!

> 
> On the other hand, DS-Lite is encapsulation solution. 
> So, troubleshooting is a bit hard. Because tunnel hop is black box.

With the benefit that the IPv4 packet is left unharmed.\

> However, I know there's pros/cons with both mechanisms. 
> So, I think it depends on ISP's choice. I prefer 464XLAT though.

In IPv6 mostly it’s mostly a local network operator choice. :-)

464XLAT has the momentum so I’m arguing here to keep that up and ensure we do not let this solution space fragment again.
It would be nice if we got acceptance to fix some of the outstanding issues though.
Like 464XLATs requirement that every CLAT has a dedicated IPv6 address for example.

Cheers,
Ole