[v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Fri, 19 January 2018 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F7612D72F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:15:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2fFX1_lBEvgu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com []) (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 7C4B61270FC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([]) by atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w0JKFpdZ003600 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:15:51 -0500
Received: (qmail 3347 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jan 2018 20:15:51 -0000
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ? (lee@asgard.org@ by 0 with ESMTPA; 19 Jan 2018 20:15:50 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:15:48 -0500
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D687BC24.92CC1%lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: discussion of transition technologies
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3599219750_74824803"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Gi3OeSdPKbwC-0dCMUO0CIvati8>
Subject: [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: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:15:55 -0000

The WG Chairs were discussing the various transition technologies at some
length today.
I mentioned a previous conversation in another forum that led to this list
of networks and their mechanisms:
(Corrections and additions encouraged, especially with links)

Our impression was that of the 26+ transition mechanisms defined, only a few
have any modern relevance (editorial comments are mine, not consensus
6rd.   It may be that its light is waning, with early deployments moving to
native IPv6, and no new deployments.
DS-Lite.   Widely deployed, existing support among home gateway
NAT64/464xlat.   Implies NAT64, SIIT, which may be used elsewhere. Handset
CLATs. No home gateway CLAT yet.
MAP-T.   Announced trials and lots of buzz, but no large-scale deployments,
no home gateway support yet.
MAP-E.   Some buzz, no announced trials or deployments, no home gateway
support yet.
Native dual-stack.   Still the gold standard, but doesn’t solve IPv4 address

(Note that “yet” may change at any time).
As a matter of discussion, do you agree?
To guide our work, is there work we should do to document or deprecate any
of these?