Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 22 January 2018 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 BF0BE12D777 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:25:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ohXlHdssmj_g for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:25:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34D0312D7E3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CEEA2D5080; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:25:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2052C2017F371A; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:25:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <9003B298-FA2C-416C-8F5C-C06414987244@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_81EC051F-7323-4D86-B613-691B85DB482C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:25:02 +0100
In-Reply-To: <f9e2c573-d684-c7c9-94ee-0d4ffd20e293@gmail.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <D687BC24.92CC1%lee@asgard.org> <A6995969-0C03-4261-92F4-331206825130@gmail.com> <D29099E6-510D-41DA-B998-6BF15E9FDE7F@gmail.com> <1F7F8291-3023-4828-8C31-31CD379A58F5@employees.org> <116BD6B6-0081-4C4A-BAC6-5E38B68ABB91@gmail.com> <f9e2c573-d684-c7c9-94ee-0d4ffd20e293@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/M_wVOM4738zzaDcBOF1_UZ4eot0>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:25:49 -0000

> After watching this debate, I'm asking myself why we want to anything
> other than
> a) watch the market deciding for itself, and
> b) formally deprecate anything we decide is broken.

Indeed, there was consensus in the IETF to let the market decide.
(Said differently, there was no consensus on standardising fewer mechanisms).

Why would anyone think that has changed significantly enough that it would matter?
If anyone wants to reopen these discussions, may I recommend they entertain themselves by reading through the few thousand messages over the last 20 years on mailing lists like ngtrans, softwire, v6ops...

It's not for the lack of trying, ngtrans shut down, coin-tosses, deprecation etc.

It isn't a choice among 26 of course. The market is deciding. And we are not the market.
The likelihood of us, as in the IETF, producing any better advice than we've already done is quite unlikely.

Ole



> 
>   Brian
> On 23/01/2018 09:23, Fred Baker wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>>> What's the purpose of what you are trying to do?
>> 
>> This started out as a question among the chairs, triggered in part by an academic article that I can't share because it's not public yet. It lists 26 different transition mechanisms and tries to make recommendations, based in large part of recommendations we have made. The question started out as "can we narrow that to one such mechanism? Which ones are actually in use?" Now see the spreadsheet Lee shared, which comes from different data.
>> 
>> It sounds like Ole's data on 6rd needs to get reflected in Lee's spreadsheet.
>> 
>> After quite a bit of discussion, we think we had pretty much re-invented RFC 6180. The discussion isn't over, but I suspect we're close. So Lee asked for opinions from you guys.
>> 
>> And BTW, I suspect that dslite is a little long in the tooth for the same reason. The theory with both 6rd and dslite was/is that once there is a native path from here to there, even if the dslite configuration is still in the network it's unlikely to be used. That might be naive :-)
>> 
>> The big question among the chairs is "what is the real case for translation?" We see it in a variety of places, basically creating a way for IPv6-only devices or networks to talk with IPv4-only devices or networks, but wondering if there is a better way to proceed. My personal take is "it is what it is, no worse than IPv4/IPv4 translation" - not arguing for it, but considering it a fact of life until people become motivated to replace it with native systems and connectivity. YMMV.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>