Re: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-06

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 26/03/2021 à 16:12, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
> 
>> So, the car can always contact the PC server. There is no need for
>> any transition mechanism in this scenario.
> 
> But how the PC gets an IPv6 address through the Ethernet on the IoT 
> Router that connects on 4G?  The 4G only gives it a /64.  The IoT
> Router does not implement clatd etc.
> 
> -> The 4G devices today, allow /64 prefix sharing,

Only smartphones Android and iOS allow for /64 prefix sharing.  They
promote that functionality in an app.

Other IoT routers on 4G dont do that.

> same they do for tethering. I agree that ideally, we should have
> DHCPv6-PD, and in some pilot scenarios, I've used it. We have talked
> about this many times. 

Yes, and yes.


> It is not blocked by "hardware" but may be by
> baseband modem firmware.

'is not' on one hand and 'may' on the other hand - I can only agree with 
you, but there is something missing.

That is the situation right now.

>> One example of this was, a few years ago, the contract awarded to 
>> Telefónica for 53 millions of gas and electricity meters in UK,
>> worth 1.5 billion pounds in 15 years, using cellular and 6LOWPAN.
>> If they have done it with IPv4, they will have needed 34 million
>> NATs, according to their own calculations.
> 
> The IoT devices that I acquire on the market dont do 6lowpan.  There
> are indeed many 6lowpan devices but there are also many other IoT
> devices that connect on 4G, have Bluetooth/WiFi/Ethernet/Galileo and
> yet dont do 6lowpan.
> 
> -> Those devices don't deserve the right to be called IoT then. A
> real IoT devices must have IPv6 support.

Ah?  DO you mean that an IoT device on the market that does not do 
6lowpan or does not do IPv6 can not be called IoT?

This might go very far, but should be considered.

>> https://www.google.com/search?q=telefonica+awarded+uk+meters
>> 
>> Now, if you want to make it more complex, and you really need to
>> keep IPv4 incoming connections, you can still configure the NAT64
>> for that, either for specific ports or addresses. However, as said,
>> it doesn't make sense to use IPv4 for new deployments of
>> "anything".
> 
> If I _have_ to do NAT, then NAT44 is largely sufficient.  There is
> no need for v4-v6 transition mechanisms (I mean not in these trials
> I consider).
> 
> -> It is utopic to believe that NAT44 will keep scaling ...

I can agree that in the long term NAT44 might not scale, but I can also 
agree that NAT64 wouldnt scale either.

Yes, let us do IPv6, unless one calls IPv6 the IPv4+translation :-)

Alex

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************** 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 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>