IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?

Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> Sun, 05 December 2021 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alejandroacostaalamo@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 2111D3A0826 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 04:50:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.852, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 bbF-o-SArymq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 04:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa36.google.com (mail-vk1-xa36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a36]) (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 378EA3A0822 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 04:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa36.google.com with SMTP id f7so4975410vkf.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 04:50:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y2aVyMzeKLclBNeLmKzJoQXeH2m23c27TDQWbWOgqOA=; b=jZ0tzhsDYB/TCh0ytLemTMhJWQrzgHqChiKEpk67PdYM05RUnQKONlQVB3w5/LXoCA UXK388zHch++PzZKAs0qRqm3Vl6+/2Mtw5Ub07Mp1eKwTIDdJtZAUrF9qrzT/zsSYGhY n01f647I6xt9Ph555kT2cIKSQF5P7ijj4PoPJP34x5Khzc/EanH4GDBJYCy8jAbz7mN0 dfkl+eXFJngcSh8G39nFfi7nnt71CrVclI2JhUd7kuoFYEercWewV3vha1l1pTPHjOTO hlyQ32jXz6tNS8M5SxJ+7zziPEXPztgKczP+mjPlTuhD68Jyxg+Ax6yiAl2bydo/J/rt J6eA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=y2aVyMzeKLclBNeLmKzJoQXeH2m23c27TDQWbWOgqOA=; b=F7bpNgzW6uX+nK4fdUKdR6/guehel/qwsshediW7Hwb7oKLsGGozLhgqUDA7AXKEPQ 1fcWnmg43o3KaRJ2wX/tXOS6LeGd30vey3Kovsdlbhzbj5/xBBSPUrEtyolnISJ1PKYP U6lRicehk+Ei5LEfCwqWNdg3k8+GE+dio8FdKu+5bdyexZOtk/9Tnt1t2HrlDX4oBWP9 1lpBb/+LiaobSr+aKV1E8SYGyAKY8Bl5me829JCDp2X58V6SE5U3IiPUkv5nbDtpfiMg ZtrFDJNrZf3YN/bJ4FgQ6lszyB9SZfCWKlN0/3xO8YyPcMJ1v96dLKMeUG+RqOYs83n0 AUAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532iY9xQ8DNLhf//EMq8ad+vSNZA2Wc6tL2e9eSdFiF9+GQjGUK9 RXxUbnUgVRuU8uEsNegxRoc9pp/rrHb4UQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzK6u7ju/O9X9rsaz/g/15mc2awKoLkKZIVIuExs+GMiUlRLFkKlaxpHc1wBsDS8XVtK5Iozg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:d9d:: with SMTP id bc29mr33846216vkb.14.1638708643374; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 04:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.75] ([181.208.136.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q9sm2500927vkn.44.2021.12.05.04.50.16 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Dec 2021 04:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c229e960-e602-2407-965b-1814b9fb0b95@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 08:50:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/9nTtQhUMGiJPfoLB2lwM0AG8beI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 12:50:54 -0000

Hello,

   Maybe this is not exactly what you are looking for but probably is 
closed enough.

   Summary: in LACNIC for two years in a row we have been working in 
identifying which CPEs are the most common in the part of the world, and 
then looking for which transition mechanisms are supported by them.

   We have published two documents about it. Both can be found in here:

https://www.lacnic.net/5832/1/lacnic/

   The direct link for the latest one is here:

https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/4297/1/informe-cpes-ipv6-2020-v7.docx.pdf


    I know they are in Spanish :-(  sorry for this.

   Hope this helps to you and probably more people.


Alejandro,





On 23/11/21 10:25 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there any data on what IPv4aaS transition mechanisms are deployed 
> by ISPs today? I was approached by a router vendor asking me "how they 
> should provide IPv6-only" and I was looking for data on which 
> mechanisms are most common.
>
> Official IETF guidance in RFC 8585 and 8026 is "do all of them and let 
> ISPs decide, have a nice day", but that's not very helpful to a 
> development team with finite engineering resources and low margins. In 
> particular, it's not helpful to vendors of routers that are updatable 
> and that can thus credibly claim that they can deliver other 
> mechanisms via software update. Those vendors could reasonably argue 
> that it's better for everyone if they launch the most common 
> mechanism(s) first, and then deliver the others in software updates.
>
> It seems like reasonable implementation guidance would be to request 
> OPTION_S46_PRIORITY and parse it, but only initially implement one or 
> two of the mechanisms and leave the others for a future release. If a 
> router did this, what mechanisms should it implement first? MAP-E?
>
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email