[v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 06 August 2013 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 3306521F9C83 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1aA9IJ9tIE44 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x232.google.com (mail-pd0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE63921F9C66 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w10so4116785pde.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:49:18 -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=id6iwwOghY+Hin/O0NzHdO9LJ62536NfPVS3QX68ZjM=; b=jWE5RmUMVbD1mjw9ngsuPKS4U9gYjkyon8UvddplG+IOmsDPMK5edyPitjCXb5+HZZ 3ODCICIZkSUAKNKyTMX4kReKL5dxcYmNzU4x+zZFwqijE2qCU3lbU+bHf4UkTzd5lmMp RiYvVLiVsM03Re+XsCE3X/GDNB5dmFKfgF2VS1WmOtOPgJc7lyudea6di0PSl3i97i03 CTPxjnBFLo73AA1PunGlEHjr68yGIwgp/GvPw+swMqgMzdjQ5kxdGsjKJ0HfjgNVE9uJ eKAx1BPIcOqHU5xB7VCfz6coMk3hSqbExjH9sUlv+T943ErRqQRNRW5TnBVF9gjNvLZe B02Q==
X-Received: by 10.68.43.71 with SMTP id u7mr25591284pbl.187.1375764558511; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.31.170] (wireless-nat-1.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.30.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id py4sm2697435pbc.14.2013.08.05.21.49.16 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5200804D.2050006@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:49:17 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 06 Aug 2013 04:49:19 -0000

On a different topic, section 5 covers IPv6-only issues.
I'm a bit concerned that this might need a health warning:
deploying NAT64/DNS64 might cause pain and suffering.
Perhaps after this text:

>    Together, RFCs
>    6146 and RFC 6147 provide a viable method for an IPv6-only client to
>    initiate communications to an IPv4-only server.

we should add something like:

   At enterprise level, operating NAT64 and DNS64 services for
   heavy usage may have significant practical implications.

Also, the last paragraph of section 5:

>    It is worth noting that for IPv6-only access networks that use
>    technologies such as NAT64, the more content providers (and
>    enterprises) that make their content available over IPv6, the less
>    the requirement to apply NAT64 to traffic leaving the access network.

A reference to RFC 6883 would fit nicely there.

Regards
   Brian