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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Fri, 26 March 2021 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1719f229c3=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 8473E3A20D7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es
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 f7fBSK3t9a9u for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524653A20D6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1616771557; x=1617376357; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=kjBmnwLc kM2iNjt7EUYzs1OZE5izH10NKoSwbeNB0WY=; b=AVpK1i6c8e4WyukEklzasyTC ipSBk6J3UUp42k6xWwcXvD7IqO348JvqtO84qjTP2KcnwgItsTARa0csqfTPUNdW BsdiIsZ8MBzfOpTNbhaItkE5TcK2HBK/18fjC35Ld+Sn4+pxMnJPkCH/CrOuimL5 g7/Lvk1YQXlVQPzBLxA=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:12:37 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:12:37 +0100
Received: from [10.10.10.145] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000558041.msg for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:12:36 +0100
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:90e7:a4df:2263:17f2
X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.145]
X-MDArrival-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:12:36 +0100
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Return-Path: prvs=1719f229c3=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.47.21031401
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:12:36 +0100
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <DA520004-3768-4CA0-9A8F-9FDC76572AB5@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-06
References: <BL0PR05MB5316425C5650B5D2FE43DE4DAE6C9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <74d6dca7019f44aba09caf47ef703e2f@huawei.com> <CAB75xn7=swhtwqRuV6SoWoMO7jtCcPCc02XiVpAjE=VUx8CyaQ@mail.gmail.com> <6059897e.1c69fb81.ac270.d863SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <749643a7-313f-4bd1-8bb8-7dc26d830070@gmail.com> <605aae8f.1c69fb81.8a8ed.04b7SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <35c4cf4f-0128-dff6-27a3-4cc868539f7f@gmail.com> <9614BF99-431D-4046-9762-0F111AFBB27D@consulintel.es> <a498117e-4834-41f8-5c90-ad7734d07220@hit.bme.hu> <e770fec1-2189-f683-6c74-36e32541c53d@gmail.com> <abe65114-d9c9-10ee-2c78-449051acbb61@hit.bme.hu> <3c50c72b-b606-a6cf-3095-f08ad48eecf5@gmail.com> <2A0C2B40-2DA4-4941-A09F-5BD31EDA3301@consulintel.es> <2e64b426-3a0a-b5f8-0306-005e9f1023d0@gmail.com> <72754d29-8b57-66fa-2b3a-fc6680c339f2@hit.bme.hu> <bdeec6da-3b2a-8cd4-e2d4-feb62c282c7d@gmail.com> <5E67F1F7-4065-4500-B722-D1E8E9458242@consulintel.es> <0db72084-5952-d8b0-c3ab-cc30d7325111@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0db72084-5952-d8b0-c3ab-cc30d7325111@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/GeYXGKQKQdXWnt17r7e03dwvl9Y>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-06
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:12:47 -0000

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


    > 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.

    > 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 ...





**********************************************
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.