Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sun, 21 January 2018 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 84CC512D77E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:44:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 7kAPf_nkU0LN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 459C4127337 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691EE4A; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:44:39 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date:date :in-reply-to:x-mailer:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1516563875; bh=TYWOViiHjg94wHUKb5NmOa0p+2ft0iquzWowwe0sJLA=; b=c XKJ75ni4Y6I44Na7JNk1ZL233HX9cb7g8rLLAbjcrmyju16pqYxU/Ovaeicv2kHA doFT8lrDhieRF+KTLkhlsrT7WjBD2hDtQga3+Vnc6MjKOk/DZl2qH2UebXGNDVlp 3zjgXfVz091qC0/6E27qsVOiZkagZhzQrDrvgWLgo0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 12u5-76GKxlb; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:44:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:d539:ee60:ce:1c37] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:d539:ee60:ce:1c37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C6AB49; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:44:33 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15C202)
In-Reply-To: <D29099E6-510D-41DA-B998-6BF15E9FDE7F@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:44:31 +0100
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C4759D8-9B79-4380-B7F1-0E0388E63C10@steffann.nl>
References: <D687BC24.92CC1%lee@asgard.org> <A6995969-0C03-4261-92F4-331206825130@gmail.com> <D29099E6-510D-41DA-B998-6BF15E9FDE7F@gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DrZNs95FuDVUckm0XQiqXFxY6Oo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Jan 2018 19:44:44 -0000

Hi Fred,

>> - first choice, deploy native IPv6 - for scenarios in which IPv6 islands are connected across IPv4 space, use dslite (a tunneling design).
>> - for scenarios in which IPv4 islands are connected across IPv6 space, use dslite (a tunneling design).
>  - for scenarios in which IPv6 islands are connected across IPv4 space, use 6rd (a tunneling design).
>> - for scenarios in which IPv6 systems have to talk with IPv4 systems, translate. Please consider doing so above the IP layer.
>> 
>> I would argue that 464XLAT, MAP-E, and MAP-T are "services in which an ISP might use SIIT/NAT64 in its network", and are therefore not fundamental transition technologies as much as ISP services built using them.
>> 
>> I think I might also argue that the market has more or less followed that advice. Your spreadsheet seems to suggest that.
> 
> The interesting thing is that 6rd, which is a way of appearing to have an IPv6 network without actually having one, is not what one might call "prevalent". It has in fact been used for *transition*, in places like Free - which used to connect IPv6 customers using 6rd and (I understand) has recently announced native IPv6 deployment. The places I know that have used it used it for a while and then have gone native.
> 
> Would you agree with that?

Looks good!

Thanks,
Sander