Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT

["Metzler, Dan J" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:56 PM
> To: Metzler, Dan J; [e-mail]; Heatley, Nick
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt -
> C_REC#9 464XLAT
> 
> On 13/02/2015 22:36, Metzler, Dan J wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> >> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:59 AM To:
> >> [e-mail]; Heatley, Nick Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action:
> >> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT
> >>
> > <snip/>
> >>
> >>> Some operators are seeing CLAT as critical because they don't want
> >>> to have a service disruption compared to IPv4 when IPv6-only
> >>> connectivity is provided to their customers.
> >>
> >> I agree about the criticality of IPv4 apps when IPv6-only
> >> connectivity is in place.
> >>
> >> But why should there be IPv6-only connectivity in place today for the
> >> masses?
> >
> > Because whether it exists today, or not, that's the goal we are
> > working toward.  It's far too late to be designing things based on
> > some assumption that IPv6-only connectivity doesn't have to actually
> > work anyway.  The ultimate goal is IPv6-only connectivity for the
> > masses, and if we make no other assumptions, we ought to be able to
> > start with the assumption that at least works to all internet
> > connected IPv6 endpoints.
> 
> Yes, I agree with the goal.  But I think it is too early to think IPv6-only for the
> masses.

In this group, it is too late not to think IPv6-only for the masses.  We past that point long ago.  Certainly, we aren't ready to stop thinking about transition technologies.

> 
> I talk to a number of professional deployers and the majority is still
> questioning the necessity of IPv6.

I think you're suggesting that, since the majority of a few selected "professional deployers", are still questioning the necessity of IPv6, that v6ops should not be worried about IPv6 only actually working?  That doesn't make much sense.  
Our job at this point should be:
1) Make sure IPv6 works, and works better than IPv4.  (If we don't do this first, then there is no reason for number 2.)
2) Make sure there is a good and effective working long term migration path to get from IPv4 only to IPv6 only.

Without number 1, number 2 is not a viable option that I'm aware of.

> 
> >> Nobody but some ultra-geek do this IPv6-only today.
> >
> > Ouch!
> 
> Sorry, didnt mean to hurt anyone's feelings.  Geek is said with respect.
> 
> One must be ultra-geek to turn off her IPv4 stack.  Have you tried?
> 
> >> Even if the operator's network is IPv6 only, it should have means to
> >> translate between v4 and v6 at its edges, such as to show pure
> >> IPv4 and pure IPv6 t user.
> >>
> >
> > I think we should stay away from assumptions like this.
> 
> But 464xlat/clat is already doing translation. Except that it does translation
> only on one edge and on the terminal.  It should have done translation on
> both edges and let the terminal free of not implementing CLAT.
> 
> > If no one is going to mandate that all ISPs MUST provide IPv6
> > connectivity, (and that hasn't happened yet), then it doesn't seem
> > like we can make assumptions about where the translation needs to
> > happen.
> 
> I agree with you, IPv6 must be recommended.  But there several types in which
> to bring IPv6 in.  Some are smoother than others.
> 
> In the case I struggle with, in the current situation (CLAT required on the
> terminal), I will be forced to recommend and use an IPv4-only APN type, and
> leave IPv6 for a few years later.
> 
> The end users will not even have a chance to see an RA coming from the
> network and their Windows end-systems naturally self-configure an address.
> 
> The end user does not want IPv6, the backend system does not want to
> provide IPv6.  Only the cellular system imposes IPv6.

What do you mean by backend system?

The end user usually does not "want" IPv4, but we still gave it to them.  That the end user "does not want IPv6" is a questionable statement in light of the current state of the internet.  The end user really wants the Internet, and that's as far as it goes.  The typical end user is unaware of what they want at layer 3, because they tend not to look below layer 7.  The reality is, either the end user wants to run out of IPv4 addresses, or they want IPv6.  (They just might not be aware of it yet.)

> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - Dan (part time ultra-geek I guess)
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> >> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel
> antivirus Avast.
> http://www.avast.com