Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

And the issue is that you’re talking only about the cellular networks, but we have the same issue with the residential ones … and the corporates that only use the network to “browse” (not to expose services outside).

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Responder a: <rajiva@cisco.com>
Fecha: viernes, 22 de septiembre de 2017, 9:45
Para: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

    I don't think that there any iOS app that is not IPv6-only compatible (since the apple AppStore mandate more than a year* ago). Is there one ?

    If Google playstore could mandate something similar (perhaps, there is one that I am not aware of), then almost all mobile UEs can happily live with v6-only without any Clat function.  Better
     battery life, likely. 

    Hence, There is no need for XLAT being a BCP at this time in that regard. 

    Of course, NAT64 inside the network would still be needed to accommodate the smaller  (% of traffic) v4-only internet connectivity. But that's an ongoing saga of another debate.  

    However, there is one exception - tethering :: if mobile UE is tethered and the other devices connecting to its W/LAN are stuck in legacy v4-only, then mobile ISPs might prefer to not leave them behind to ensure customer experience. What "technical" options
     do we have then? Well, really two == Let go of v6-only access (provide an IPv4-only APN if tethering is enabled resulting in a dual-stack UE) or stick with v6-only access, but turn on CLAT function !!

    Cheers,
    Rajiv 

    * https://developer.apple.com/support/ipv6/

    On Sep 22, 2017, at 8:22 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

    Hi,

    On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 02:17:55PM +0200, Ole Troan wrote:

    On 22 Sep 2017, at 13:48, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

    On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:07:19PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:

    IPv6 applications need to add code to WORKAROUND breakages caused

    by NAT64 the way they need add WORKAROUNDS for the NAT breakages

    even if they are not using NAT64 or NAT respectively.  The cancer

    that is NAT64 needs to be eradicated.

    It will nicely go away if all endpoints are reachable over v6.

    I think that?fs the concern. That it will not. 

    IPv6 applications will have code to accommodate for NAT64 forever.

    Yeah, but you can't have the cake and eat it.  Either we go v6-only
    everywhere, or we keep running IPv4 everywhere until everybody else
    is done, or we introduce v4/v6 NATs, or we add a CLAT to every single
    operating system out there.

    What's it gonna be, boys?

    (Oh, "or we give up, roll back existing v6 deployments, and live happy
    with v4 nat forever".  FAR less work, and for Joe Average User, it won't
    make a difference.  Facebook and Youtube will continue to work, and
    their IoT devices will keep drilling holes into firewalls to ensure that
    they can be exploited no matter what)

    Gert Doering
           -- NetMaster
    -- 
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

    SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    v6ops@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    v6ops@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
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.