IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 06 August 2014 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086AF1B2A3E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 07:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 HEvyBnJ-JqJe for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 07:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EE71B27F8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 07:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1XF2Rg-0000BRC; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:44:04 +0200
Message-Id: <m1XF2Rg-0000BRC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <53E0C548.9050706@fud.no> <5C9FC57A-0DA5-4D36-84AE-CF1D6D17FB44@eircom.net> <53E1C587.4000506@fud.no> <m1XEy8M-0000AXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140806123243.GU51793@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:32:43 +0200 ." <20140806123243.GU51793@Space.Net>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:44:03 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/MiUZBOBWu7OXzlZqB7gQ17k9UX0
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:44:10 -0000

In your letter dated Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:32:43 +0200 you wrote:
>Why do you find it so hard to accept that "dual-stack inside" is not
>a desirable property?

I find that very easy to accept. Except that from my point of view the
proposals presented to avoid dual stack are worse. 

The way I see it, translating IPv4 into IPv6 is just going to bite you.

Now, tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 may work, if the tunneling is local and
if the tunnel preserves a 1500 octet MTU for IPv4.

At the end of the day, all externally visible stuff still has to have IPv4.
That is dual stack, no matter how you slice it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email