Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

A bit of a late addition to the spreadsheet. Also, I find it a bit 
strange that lightweight 4o6 did not get a single mention in the whole 
thread

regards,
Yannis

On 01/19/2018 10:15 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
> The WG Chairs were discussing the various transition technologies at 
> some length today.
> I mentioned a previous conversation in another forum that led to this 
> list of networks and their mechanisms:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ksOoWOaRdRyjZnjLSikHf4O5L1OUTNOO_7NK9vcVApc/edit#gid=0
> (Corrections and additions encouraged, especially with links)
>
> Our impression was that of the 26+ transition mechanisms defined, only 
> a few have any modern relevance (editorial comments are mine, not 
> consensus positions):
> 6rd.   It may be that its light is waning, with early deployments 
> moving to native IPv6, and no new deployments.
> DS-Lite.   Widely deployed, existing support among home gateway 
> manufacturers.
> NAT64/464xlat.   Implies NAT64, SIIT, which may be used elsewhere. 
> Handset CLATs. No home gateway CLAT yet.
> MAP-T.   Announced trials and lots of buzz, but no large-scale 
> deployments, no home gateway support yet.
> MAP-E.   Some buzz, no announced trials or deployments, no home 
> gateway support yet.
> Native dual-stack.   Still the gold standard, but doesn’t solve IPv4 
> address shortage.
>
> (Note that “yet” may change at any time).
> As a matter of discussion, do you agree?
> To guide our work, is there work we should do to document or deprecate 
> any of these?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops