IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

"cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> Thu, 08 August 2013 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
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 2205C21F9CC2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eC5GjYw515k3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4609821F9CBD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f12so2172117wgh.27 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=D4jvcipYK+zsjTwCM3J3AwApFkh5/YRbTKOsXpd2rFU=; b=GNDOdKSPIrfw8JK6s/sSrrutrAEutv5uSQI0tqucF3ZEPYU+H6DgP0l8fNQCiySQ5W uKHa1E0q/MkrZV+CMvNhL/bdSmxeJsiDUCQNcQXZVy+1tKtCr8uiLsEcuXIBJgvTpOVw H4nmVx2f5tVS/HRiYUktaNEjEY6JXGIBhlzFxJr1EQuNMBRh18PmdyPiuqVdpG9HF38p MLD8nVMJMRkmAInhai4FbR7M18nUempFAuWVOxB9+zpq8F8032E16vrbxrswcxCa0GEY XCYxp3J3xrDIwj2HSwy3B5QlfQJ8ku2ff+Wlh5FzpVrbgoRe0hiWZ2+xuhGyscWrs2Qj EV3g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.95.2 with SMTP id dg2mr3984237wib.34.1375934909079; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.15.68 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.15.68 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5200804D.2050006@gmail.com>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <5200804D.2050006@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:08:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTGL9JVK6egOAVXhMFv77L0b=9eVjKAauwNzLnaM=Mcyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04426c067d688c04e367cffe"
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 04:08:31 -0000

On Aug 5, 2013 9:49 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On a different topic, section 5 covers IPv6-only issues.
> I'm a bit concerned that this might need a health warning:
> deploying NAT64/DNS64 might cause pain and suffering.
> Perhaps after this text:
>
> >    Together, RFCs
> >    6146 and RFC 6147 provide a viable method for an IPv6-only client to
> >    initiate communications to an IPv4-only server.
>
> we should add something like:
>
>    At enterprise level, operating NAT64 and DNS64 services for
>    heavy usage may have significant practical implications.
>

Can you be more specific? Pratical data?

CB

> Also, the last paragraph of section 5:
>
> >    It is worth noting that for IPv6-only access networks that use
> >    technologies such as NAT64, the more content providers (and
> >    enterprises) that make their content available over IPv6, the less
> >    the requirement to apply NAT64 to traffic leaving the access network.
>
> A reference to RFC 6883 would fit nicely there.
>
> Regards
>    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email