Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only was: (More) Comments on draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula

[Xipengxiao <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

I can feel that your “IPv6-only” is different from mine.  This is why we need to clearly define it.  Please take a look at Section 1.1 of the draft to see if you agree.  In short, IPv6-only has a scope.  Part of the network can be IPv6-only while the overall service is Dual-Stack.  Therefore, this definition encourages part of the network to become IPv6-only, and grows its scope over time.  I think it has practical value.

XiPeng


From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer=[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 1:27 PM
To: Xipengxiao <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>; Fred Baker <[e-mail]>; Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>; IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only was: (More) Comments on draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula

I think defining IPv6-only is futile. Except for very limited circumstances, IPv4 can't go away yet, particularly in the context of the Internet. I think the best we can do right now is define how IPv4 is supported. I think the options are either Dual-Skack with native (on-wire) IPv4 and IPv6 or IPv4-AAS, where IPv4 is delivered over IPv6 between Hosts (or possibly the CPE router) and some kind of transition gateway, usually some variation of NAT64.

Just my opinion, for what that is worth.

Thanks

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:45 AM Xipengxiao <xipengxiao=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment/ made an effort to define what IPv6-only is.  I think it did a fine job.  If we can agree on what IPv6-only is, we can also agree on what Dual-Stack is (any IPv6 deployment that is not IPv6-only is Dual-Stack).  So it would be great if you folks can take a look at Section 1.1 and see if you agree.

XiPeng

From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 11:30 AM
To: Fred Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] (More) Comments on draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula

Sorry, but that was deliberate. I don’t think we have a lot of clarity as to what we mean by dual stack. That leads, as you rightly pointed out, to circular discussions.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:28 Fred Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


> On Jul 26, 2022, at 6:08 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> For example, is a v6-only network with NAT64 dual-stack?

No hats.

With respect, I tend to think this question muddies the waters. You said it's a v6-only network. It's v6-only. If it has an access mechanism (NAT64) to enable someone else to communicate with it using a different technology, that isn't inherent in the network, and doesn't change the nature of the network.
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================