Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

Clarifying myself … in the sense that having deployed IPv6 much earlier will have avoided exhausting IPv4 addresses *before* IPv6 is actually deployed in s sufficient % of the networks.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Responder a: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Fecha: lunes, 25 de septiembre de 2017, 21:26
Para: <v6ops@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence

    I guess the main issue is that we miscalculated how much time will take for the operators/hosting providers to deploy IPv6.

    If the “deployment” work was started just 3-4 years before, the situation will be now totally different … (and that will mean that we will had spent much less effort in finding new and “best” transition mechanisms, etc.).

    Regards,
    Jordi

    -----Mensaje original-----
    De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
    Organización: University of Auckland
    Responder a: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
    Fecha: lunes, 25 de septiembre de 2017, 21:20
    Para: <v6ops@ietf.org>
    Asunto: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence

        On 25/09/2017 09:45, Lee Howard wrote:
        > Personal opinion...
        ...
        > Dual stack doesn't solve the problem IPv6 was created to solve, which is the lack of available IPv4 addresses. 

        That made me sit up. In a sense it's true, but the reason for dual stack
        as the original co-existence mechanism was so that *servers* could serve
        both legacy (IPv4) and current (IPv6) clients throughout the transition
        period. So dual stack, all the way from the server to to the client's
        provider edge, was very much part of solving the lack of IPv4 addresses.

        This became inadequate because too many ISPs and hosting providers were
        too slow to support IPv6. That's why we're now in translation hell.

        On 25/09/2017 23:27, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

        > Maybe you’re not there, but operators live in a world where they don’t have any more IPv4 addresses, so double-stack is over in the access networks. 

        That isn't true everywhere. There are still plenty of places where consumer ISPs
        have IPv4 addresses for new customers (one per customer, of course). Of course,
        this won't be true for much longer. Therefore:

        > Maybe you’re not there, but operators live in a world where they don’t have any more IPv4 addresses, so double-stack is over in the access networks. However, there are devices and apps (in both cellular/tethering and non-cellular), that are IPv4-only, so user networks/LANs, need some transition support to make IPv4 transparently available end-to-end.

        Yes, sadly. And in that situation, stating that 464XLAT is BCP seems quite
        reasonable. Sad but true.

            Brian

        _______________________________________________
        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.consulintel.es
    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

    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    http://www.consulintel.es
    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.

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
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.