IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A4E13525D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 3pnhK7UFpcLv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (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 0AF8E135259 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id p10so84164ywh.8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8iqPmWvTYC6ubdyo2ZxPijcARscIR3rMA/U8PlRQRy8=; b=GP3NXMVI4J16EZ2GBqjoJ0luMMLkfj+21xkg1Kqok6kq1hTvfcx7ANfSjxi6puSTQ2 MPPOgM2+btIFQ/3SjxlAOKrVDWA69Qua0qsKT2mN6k2kJIhEG05jR7dDtXKoRXLf4gwA ggksHrtjOPeMVSWXIQuAfAmSie7uzh7j9weCUxQxwJ0aInzCv36Bs9qO4FVm0RQxpMEd rXnEEu7ijPr45a34Gf7X4iUq8m/WHh3maY3jbC7UnJRKJkwLOki9CsLm5GczdGGlHfRG fLrc8rdplVQyBjA70XyAkZYW87/R7zlZZGbkkIYmhZOMueIXApewTRebf4YjCfDhxb8/ TlVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8iqPmWvTYC6ubdyo2ZxPijcARscIR3rMA/U8PlRQRy8=; b=YqcqCMmyHqWYNglrPFtFtZkALZIr5S+egRreTF838LZIjvfpGWkdmXx6iBWcV8cq37 8WH43unT/b4iTeeq9FwPxHPiGg5C7Br07/CF8mFaW+4/FN0sdEjGvpq/yBkwzT5dtm1S 1lW3Hyg0LEvp9Yghsym7Ywd4noPPmafua8qsK+dtp7bLWmkeBZC05JffWKQQod2ZlL4T z+vGJZBylCMByKw0E/NXpCphEV0vx/dtCghRYAdAFbL2WeSOQ9dQcYXbhG5jAe5xW+oz ifesY+2QL78MX+YjLeNAiXxxxLzYi9Sa1kSSQkjdDMjm4I2lZ2V25GLOTZc1bayR/2os HU+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjmrPAQeREFhI5AI9QNh3doq1NhPDZX5/VcE6KtHumLgrUyCYB6 ZBsLobQtQ307bL6qS2k3PsbRvU/V6jFs2O7xgAIDug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAmrrjlLeUxsA92yvzrryqWkEMdvOE2XopDmb6DUYdeE5af9Tel/fltGsnDRmEBSwVaXnUSeKdN6PcGioTKBF0=
X-Received: by 10.37.91.69 with SMTP id p66mr2425136ybb.423.1506565047860; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.214.213 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E72C3FBE-57A4-4058-B9E5-F7392C9E9101@google.com>
References: <LO1P123MB01168388285206BB7C26F029EA7A0@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <46045DAA-9096-43BA-A5FD-571232767726@google.com> <CAKD1Yr3vziaHfkR+hQ7QHXaz7QraKH2HLUVXUW63GpnOAj4JoQ@mail.gmail.com> <E72C3FBE-57A4-4058-B9E5-F7392C9E9101@google.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:17:04 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr20+SOyE2u=0=t+_S3tnRinzXNYBTLm-HpJBOTKnG1SFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140f45282e438055a36828f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/7HJNiuh5EVhNOdwKowD2eZqz_lk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 02:17:30 -0000

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:08 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that the approach used by Apple requires that
> applications be modified. That's feasible given that Apple controls the app
> store, but it's not feasible for most OSes.
>
>
> You deleted the key phrase in my earlier message:
>
> ...in all the cases anyone really cares about…
>
>
> Nobody really cares about the apps that can’t (or won’t) be updated.
>

Those apps' users care. The Apple strategy only works if the OS vendor can
make it clear to app developers that supporting IPv6 is a requirement in
order to continue to run on the platform. That simply isn't feasible for
most OSes.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email