IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] The meaning of "IPv6-only" -- Re: sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Tue, 30 March 2021 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 8683F3A1825 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 STHi3pk4iGOq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661E33A1821 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.118] (host-79-121-41-166.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 12UFHiKt079984 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 17:17:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-41-166.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.166] claimed to be [192.168.1.118]
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <6fe89c92-a7f1-baf2-6225-7c1bc397c8ee@gmail.com> <7837404c0ba34ef38567a1d74df6381c@huawei.com> <82bbfb68-4489-6987-11fd-954e8e9eccf5@gmail.com> <2EF62E53-DCB6-436D-A240-6969483A98EC@consulintel.es> <caaba643-f99c-b45c-f7fa-b3ad55e79ae5@gmail.com> <95710B27-53CB-4450-9A5D-D1E45C60D62E@consulintel.es> <cfc6d594-7dc8-1747-3598-618c2115cb05@gmail.com>
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <abacbd51-1f7f-77cf-2322-c8c21e2cb204@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 17:17:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cfc6d594-7dc8-1747-3598-618c2115cb05@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1292E86AE2C77E1E236B60F1"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.41.166; helo=[192.168.1.118]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/D-90W9UAIaEpM3TUnTLxjOp24J0>
Subject: [v6ops] The meaning of "IPv6-only" -- Re: sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
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: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:18:10 -0000

I think, I can understand both of you. :-)

Perhaps the root cause of the difference of your understanding of 
"IPv6-only" is your "word view", I mean that:

Jordi as the first author of RFC 8585 uses the expression "IPv6-only" in 
the meaning of _connectivity_, as used in the terminology of RFC 8585:

    "IPv4aaS" stands for "IPv4-as-a-Service", meaning transition
    technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only connectivity.

Alex is experimenting with systems that were get rid of IPv4 completely 
by removing or switching off the IPv4 protocol stack, and thus uses the 
term in this sense.

We can decide to use "IPv6-only" for the first one or for the second 
one, but it will be still only our convention. Could we perhaps create 
and use some more precise terms?

Gábor

On 3/30/2021 4:54 PM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>
> Le 30/03/2021 à 16:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>> I disagree, it may be different interfaces.
>
> This is right.
>
>> It may be an IPv6-only VPN on top of a dual stack "physical" 
>> interface, etc., etc.
>
> I see.
>
>> It is necessary to describe the specific context to be accurate when 
>> we say "IPv6-only".
>
> Some times it looks like a never ending story.
>
> As it stands now, I wonder why we still speak about IPv6-only when 
> IPv4 is there everywhere anyways.
>
> Still, there are FreeBSD computers whose IPv4 stack has been stripped 
> off of the kernel, and Windows machines that turned off IPv4 from some 
> interfaces.  But, strangely enough, it is not these computers that we 
> call 'IPv6-only'.
>
> What we seem to be calling 'IPv6-only' is the linux-based smartphones 
> whose IPv4 stack is still in them.
>
> Alex
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>>
>> El 30/3/21 14:14, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" 
>> <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 
>> escribió:
>>
>>
>>
>>      Le 30/03/2021 à 13:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>      > You only need IPv4 support if the other side of the 
>> communication is
>>      > IPv4-only.
>>      >
>>      > I read RFC6540, in this context as if the app, protocol, service,
>>      > etc. will work if IPv4 is disabled.
>>      >
>>      > So this is true in all the IPv6-only mechanisms, because 
>> precisely
>>      > the idea is to make sure that if at some point there are no more
>>      > "IPv4-only whatever", it will still work.
>>
>>      We cant talk about IPv6-only and IPv4 at the same time in the 
>> same computer.
>>
>>      The point is to make sure that IPv6 works ok without IPv4.
>>
>>      Alex
>>
>>      >
>>      > Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > El 30/3/21 12:08, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu"
>>      > <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de 
>> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>>      > escribió:
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > Le 30/03/2021 à 09:44, Giuseppe Fioccola a écrit :
>>      >> Hi Alexandre, Yes, the main scope is to describe the global IPv6
>>      >> deployment and provide an overview on how the transition to IPv6
>>      >> is progressing, indeed the draft is informational. Anyway,
>>      >> according to the statistics and to the surveys, it can be 
>> possible
>>      >> to make some general considerations and report transition
>>      >> challenges in order to encourage actions in the areas identified
>>      >> (e.g. section "Call for action").
>>      >
>>      > I agree.
>>      >
>>      > However, I have a doubt.  At a point this draft says:
>>      >
>>      > "It is recommended that all networking standards assume the 
>> use of
>>      > IPv6 and be written so they do not require IPv4 ([RFC6540])."
>>      >
>>      > Incidentally, I agree with the recommendation, but it is still an
>>      > advice.  If we want to not put an advice then we dont put it, 
>> end of
>>      > phrase.
>>      >
>>      > Besides, the paragraph above sounds great, and I agree with 
>> it.  But
>>      > it refers to RFC6540.  That RFC is great, and is a BCP.
>>      >
>>      > But in detail, it (RFC6540) says this, among other things that 
>> are
>>      > ok:
>>      >> To ensure interoperability and flexibility, the best 
>> practices are
>>      >> as follows:
>>      >>
>>      > [...]
>>      >>
>>      >> o  New and updated IP networking implementations should support
>>      >> IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but must not require 
>> IPv4
>>      >> for proper and complete function.
>>      >
>>      > This requirement is great, but in practice, 464XLAT needs IPv4 in
>>      > order to work.  So the 'must not require IPv4 for proper and
>>      > complete function' is not respected.
>>      >
>>      > A smartphone that is qualified as 'IPv6-only' by many still 
>> has an
>>      > IPv4 stack in it and still runs IPv4 software.
>>      >
>>      > That is a problem.
>>      >
>>      > This might represent a basis that - when shaken - goes up to 
>> the 'it
>>      > is recommended' of this draft that I mentioned earlier.
>>      >
>>      > Alex
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >>
>>      >> Giuseppe
>>      >>
>>      >> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops
>>      >> [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
>>      >> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 6:48 PM To: v6ops@ietf.org Subject:
>>      >> [v6ops] sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>>      >>
>>      >> I wanted to ask whether the sense of the intention of
>>      >> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment is:
>>      >>
>>      >> - to describe deployment?
>>      >>
>>      >> - or to give advice about what the deployment should be?
>>      >>
>>      >> For my part, I think it should solely describe deployment.
>>      >>
>>      >> Alex
>>      >>
>>      >> _______________________________________________ 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.theipv6company.com 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.
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > _______________________________________________ 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.theipv6company.com
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email