Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Mon, 22 January 2018 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
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 247EF124239 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:46:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
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 nSJNdbTl8o-r for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [207.82.80.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE6641201F8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:46:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=mimecast20170213; t=1516618012; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=ztSb6zPAdAbsi4hm6E3rrHry+E5JhhzC2Ck6AEICwjM=; b=WJ8M4nPPmXKskckFNKoCw/jEqYZD67J16mirIoe/C7y6m+/cUQKIinRvNnM1RTH+aAPji/IXZFCMGAqDHVnki/YqqfQosOt4NIse30usFlUvqbUaC5uhrav+mbnTxjYKUZRYZKaAPCrPoLCfqXEc8SX3KrlTb41tw1a11+ARvPI=
Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-he1eur01lp0213.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.213]) (Using TLS) by eu-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-90-7XAMzT7GPwG0fncfjCGf7Q-1; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:46:47 +0000
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.188.14) by AM3PR07MB0632.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.160.4.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.444.5; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:46:45 +0000
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c1bb:a18c:e0dc:ca80]) by AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c1bb:a18c:e0dc:ca80%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0444.008; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:46:45 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
CC: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
Thread-Index: AQHTkWJgKa3/JNne/0WMnUAV2Gh+XKN75qkAgALSgoCAAASSgIAA/BWA
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:46:45 +0000
Message-ID: <E1F0B499-3C4B-4B80-A23E-201B1FCDBC66@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <D687BC24.92CC1%lee@asgard.org> <A6995969-0C03-4261-92F4-331206825130@gmail.com> <D29099E6-510D-41DA-B998-6BF15E9FDE7F@gmail.com> <2C4759D8-9B79-4380-B7F1-0E0388E63C10@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <2C4759D8-9B79-4380-B7F1-0E0388E63C10@steffann.nl>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:7873:90f2:e3c4:2f64]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM3PR07MB0632; 20:5z4Fct9jLUaY9CgdfAlv67DbjMUuQ2Il6Ohc3QiFPZzAv4BVW4MXJciFEmj4/Clq6rQ2W5pAEBuIE/AEKx89Gh8pGCZwbRiFMnMdWKvyU/eqUZ03qJW823ncVQcmrYKnilylkiivt3mZ51R2DooTrXuj1yl/PLMVnie3Nku70lA=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bcaf376b-0bf5-45f9-8890-08d561856eab
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534125)(4602075)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:AM3PR07MB0632;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM3PR07MB0632:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM3PR07MB06327A1D184D210AC9F23578D6EC0@AM3PR07MB0632.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(21532816269658);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040501)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231046)(2400081)(944501161)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041288)(201703131423095)(201702281529075)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:AM3PR07MB0632; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:AM3PR07MB0632;
x-forefront-prvs: 0560A2214D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(39850400004)(39380400002)(366004)(396003)(376002)(189003)(199004)(786003)(106356001)(33656002)(316002)(82746002)(97736004)(53936002)(305945005)(7736002)(8936002)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(2906002)(50226002)(39060400002)(68736007)(3280700002)(3660700001)(6246003)(229853002)(5660300001)(76176011)(478600001)(72206003)(4326008)(6346003)(6506007)(53546011)(6916009)(2950100002)(25786009)(42882006)(102836004)(14454004)(6116002)(57306001)(6512007)(6436002)(36756003)(74482002)(6486002)(105586002)(93886005)(54906003)(2900100001)(83716003)(86362001)(99286004)(5250100002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR07MB0632; H:AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: VBxnuyDC1fgsLae4kFc4sp7oNhyiDKup8MuGtdIwDuAqaNts5EJuZ61nwF0iRzLmbc1S+3d1LcwCSPqR3EvPAw==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-ID: <48B31263F5C3C74D9F28290837E57861@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bcaf376b-0bf5-45f9-8890-08d561856eab
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jan 2018 10:46:45.7760 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM3PR07MB0632
X-MC-Unique: 7XAMzT7GPwG0fncfjCGf7Q-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OxYXKU-wRg_MYl2OZi2Mikl51x4>
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 10:46:57 -0000

> On 21 Jan 2018, at 19:44, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
>>> - first choice, deploy native IPv6 - for scenarios in which IPv6 islands are connected across IPv4 space, use dslite (a tunneling design).
>>> - for scenarios in which IPv4 islands are connected across IPv6 space, use dslite (a tunneling design).
>> - for scenarios in which IPv6 islands are connected across IPv4 space, use 6rd (a tunneling design).
>>> - for scenarios in which IPv6 systems have to talk with IPv4 systems, translate. Please consider doing so above the IP layer.
>>> 
>>> I would argue that 464XLAT, MAP-E, and MAP-T are "services in which an ISP might use SIIT/NAT64 in its network", and are therefore not fundamental transition technologies as much as ISP services built using them.
>>> 
>>> I think I might also argue that the market has more or less followed that advice. Your spreadsheet seems to suggest that.
>> 
>> The interesting thing is that 6rd, which is a way of appearing to have an IPv6 network without actually having one, is not what one might call "prevalent". It has in fact been used for *transition*, in places like Free - which used to connect IPv6 customers using 6rd and (I understand) has recently announced native IPv6 deployment. The places I know that have used it used it for a while and then have gone native.
>> 
>> Would you agree with that?
> 
> Looks good!

So what translation mechanisms are you recommending "above the IP layer" ?

Tim