Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

[Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>]

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