Re: [v6ops] The meaning of "IPv6-only" -- Re: sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 30/03/2021 à 17:17, Gabor LENCSE a écrit :
> I think, I can understand both of you. :-)
> 
> Perhaps the root cause of the difference of your understanding of 
> "IPv6-only" is your "word view", I mean that:
> 
> Jordi as the first author of RFC 8585 uses the expression "IPv6-only" in 
> the meaning of _connectivity_, as used in the terminology of RFC 8585:
> 
>     "IPv4aaS" stands for "IPv4-as-a-Service", meaning transition
>     technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only connectivity.
> 
> Alex is experimenting with systems that were get rid of IPv4 completely 
> by removing or switching off the IPv4 protocol stack, and thus uses the 
> term in this sense.
> 
> We can decide to use "IPv6-only" for the first one or for the second 
> one, but it will be still only our convention. Could we perhaps create 
> and use some more precise terms?

I agree and fully support the intention!

Alex

> 
> Gábor
> 
> On 3/30/2021 4:54 PM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 30/03/2021 à 16:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>> I disagree, it may be different interfaces.
>>
>> This is right.
>>
>>> It may be an IPv6-only VPN on top of a dual stack "physical" 
>>> interface, etc., etc.
>>
>> I see.
>>
>>> It is necessary to describe the specific context to be accurate when 
>>> we say "IPv6-only".
>>
>> Some times it looks like a never ending story.
>>
>> As it stands now, I wonder why we still speak about IPv6-only when 
>> IPv4 is there everywhere anyways.
>>
>> Still, there are FreeBSD computers whose IPv4 stack has been stripped 
>> off of the kernel, and Windows machines that turned off IPv4 from some 
>> interfaces.  But, strangely enough, it is not these computers that we 
>> call 'IPv6-only'.
>>
>> What we seem to be calling 'IPv6-only' is the linux-based smartphones 
>> whose IPv4 stack is still in them.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>> @jordipalet
>>>
>>> El 30/3/21 14:14, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" 
>>> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> 
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Le 30/03/2021 à 13:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>>      > You only need IPv4 support if the other side of the 
>>> communication is
>>>      > IPv4-only.
>>>      >
>>>      > I read RFC6540, in this context as if the app, protocol, service,
>>>      > etc. will work if IPv4 is disabled.
>>>      >
>>>      > So this is true in all the IPv6-only mechanisms, because 
>>> precisely
>>>      > the idea is to make sure that if at some point there are no more
>>>      > "IPv4-only whatever", it will still work.
>>>
>>>      We cant talk about IPv6-only and IPv4 at the same time in the 
>>> same computer.
>>>
>>>      The point is to make sure that IPv6 works ok without IPv4.
>>>
>>>      Alex
>>>
>>>      >
>>>      > Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > El 30/3/21 12:08, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu"
>>>      > <[e-mail] en nombre de 
>>> [e-mail]>
>>>      > escribió:
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > Le 30/03/2021 à 09:44, Giuseppe Fioccola a écrit :
>>>      >> Hi Alexandre, Yes, the main scope is to describe the global IPv6
>>>      >> deployment and provide an overview on how the transition to IPv6
>>>      >> is progressing, indeed the draft is informational. Anyway,
>>>      >> according to the statistics and to the surveys, it can be 
>>> possible
>>>      >> to make some general considerations and report transition
>>>      >> challenges in order to encourage actions in the areas identified
>>>      >> (e.g. section "Call for action").
>>>      >
>>>      > I agree.
>>>      >
>>>      > However, I have a doubt.  At a point this draft says:
>>>      >
>>>      > "It is recommended that all networking standards assume the 
>>> use of
>>>      > IPv6 and be written so they do not require IPv4 ([RFC6540])."
>>>      >
>>>      > Incidentally, I agree with the recommendation, but it is still an
>>>      > advice.  If we want to not put an advice then we dont put it, 
>>> end of
>>>      > phrase.
>>>      >
>>>      > Besides, the paragraph above sounds great, and I agree with 
>>> it.  But
>>>      > it refers to RFC6540.  That RFC is great, and is a BCP.
>>>      >
>>>      > But in detail, it (RFC6540) says this, among other things that 
>>> are
>>>      > ok:
>>>      >> To ensure interoperability and flexibility, the best 
>>> practices are
>>>      >> as follows:
>>>      >>
>>>      > [...]
>>>      >>
>>>      >> o  New and updated IP networking implementations should support
>>>      >> IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but must not require 
>>> IPv4
>>>      >> for proper and complete function.
>>>      >
>>>      > This requirement is great, but in practice, 464XLAT needs IPv4 in
>>>      > order to work.  So the 'must not require IPv4 for proper and
>>>      > complete function' is not respected.
>>>      >
>>>      > A smartphone that is qualified as 'IPv6-only' by many still 
>>> has an
>>>      > IPv4 stack in it and still runs IPv4 software.
>>>      >
>>>      > That is a problem.
>>>      >
>>>      > This might represent a basis that - when shaken - goes up to 
>>> the 'it
>>>      > is recommended' of this draft that I mentioned earlier.
>>>      >
>>>      > Alex
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >>
>>>      >> Giuseppe
>>>      >>
>>>      >> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops
>>>      >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
>>>      >> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 6:48 PM To: [e-mail] Subject:
>>>      >> [v6ops] sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>>>      >>
>>>      >> I wanted to ask whether the sense of the intention of
>>>      >> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment is:
>>>      >>
>>>      >> - to describe deployment?
>>>      >>
>>>      >> - or to give advice about what the deployment should be?
>>>      >>
>>>      >> For my part, I think it should solely describe deployment.
>>>      >>
>>>      >> Alex
>>>      >>
>>>      >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list
>>>      >> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>      >>
>>>      >
>>>      > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list
>>>      > [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > ********************************************** 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.
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list
>>>      > [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>      >
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>