Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

Hi Jordi,
You did bring the news about iOS that is a big secret for the community. What is the iOS version that supports CLAT?
Then it is mandatory to include such important information in the draft.

I am not so interested in any specific protocol. We have too many.
I am interested in the use case: "to initiate a connection from the outside to an IPv4 server that is behind translation solution".
We could assume that port forwarding on the CPE subscriber could provision himself (probably port 80). But the CPE should receive incoming TCP session from the internet.
It would probably bring onto the discussion PCP (for some translation technologies), but if not - I would not be much disappointed.
By the way, you could dispute the use case then the question is closed.
I now carriers where all subscribers do receive public IPv4 even now.
But I know Carriers that have a shortage of public IPv4 for CGNAT pools.
Of course, you could send them to buy IPv4 on the open market because NAT connection initiated in opposite direction is additional complexity.
You choose.

Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 3:20 PM
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

Hi Eduard,

I think I can provide some light on this.

iOS was not supporting CLAT since a few years ago, which was a problem for using 464XLAT in tethering, but this is no longer true. Thanks to the push from several operators Apple finally implemented CLAT, which is only needed for the tethering, because the "similar" solution to bump-in-the-host resolve the problem for the apps in the iOS device. Further to that, this is supported because Apple took a very good decision long time ago (2016 I believe), to only allow in the AppStore apps that work in IPv6-only, so that's why the CLAT is not need for the iOS device itself.

Having no need for the CLAT to be enabled means lower battery consumption, and of course, lower CPU cost and delay if the other end is also using IPv6, so not NAT at all.

We have indeed some mentions about PCP and EAM in the text, not sure what you will like to see in the document. Could you please elaborate a bit more? An specific section about that or?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 16/4/21 14:03, "v6ops en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> escribió:

    Hi all,
    iOS does not support 464XLAT/CLAT.
    They do use RFC 6535 (Bump in the host) instead.
    It is probably an important fact for 4.4.2

    I am not sure that it is needed here. But there is the story of how to initiate a NAT connection in the opposite direction.
    PCP (RFC 7225, RFC 6887), STUN (RFC 5389), EAM (RFC 7757), public IP allocation on CGNAT.
    Different translation technologies have different compatibility and different tools for how to punch a hole in the opposite direction.
    Some FBBs have a real shortage of public IPv4 to play with this.

    It is a little strange that PCP (RFC 7225) has not been mentioned at all.

    Eduard
    -----Original Message-----
    From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
    Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:16 PM
    To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
    Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
    Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

    A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
    This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations WG of the IETF.

            Title           : Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
            Authors         : Gabor Lencse
                              Jordi Palet Martinez
                              Lee Howard
                              Richard Patterson
                              Ian Farrer
    	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt
    	Pages           : 30
    	Date            : 2021-04-15

    Abstract:
       Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to provide
       customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an IPv6-only
       access and/or core network.  All these technologies have their
       advantages and disadvantages, and depending on existing topology,
       skills, strategy and other preferences, one of these technologies may
       be the most appropriate solution for a network operator.

       This document examines the five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies
       considering a number of different aspects to provide network
       operators with an easy to use reference to assist in selecting the
       technology that best suits their needs.

    The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison/

    There are also htmlized versions available at:
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00

    Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

    Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
    ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

    _______________________________________________
    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