Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 08 August 2013 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 4AF5711E80EF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1K5nVujrfvj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF28611E81A6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id qd12so1095276ieb.28 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5DrwIvAXDpJ3COUYhDwDfsK6oL3XBDfMzb8iu6vl42g=; b=Yigdz9FfOE+1SOW+lCstxu/ChPvuzsNxiuTrS4ORtw3OqdgoMrnBO4BWDfZ7uwdDsv Ges8eAO+l84zIO+Rb2gReILtOT1EgVFFXUhI+zBXXqdFSctZCYvVaGxsMTQR7Fn2AzdM 3O6T33bM6dvkNrz7oIMiiICsTKTy2cJNFrrM+sop6LsPiFkMwTqUFjClLrtD8Rw84dW3 Wsr2pOne4g0uBwQ/d1N2QQK0+Cpx8DOvD4OeH5/93Qal5u6uwotb/1xeQXe2PcPReSjH ajsOb5GKJmC0Z9eJaQ1L/JL4BfSJFczu7Uwbi0cn3B6nQ7DNVHB0vn/k5K5/u2eKcQbx xHoQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.22.105 with SMTP id c9mr1246302igf.36.1375935846011; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (124.195.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.195.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ht10sm4210396igb.2.2013.08.07.21.24.03 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52031D69.3070604@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:24:09 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <5200804D.2050006@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTGL9JVK6egOAVXhMFv77L0b=9eVjKAauwNzLnaM=Mcyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTGL9JVK6egOAVXhMFv77L0b=9eVjKAauwNzLnaM=Mcyw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 04:24:07 -0000

On 08/08/2013 16:08, cb.list6 wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2013 9:49 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On a different topic, section 5 covers IPv6-only issues.
>> I'm a bit concerned that this might need a health warning:
>> deploying NAT64/DNS64 might cause pain and suffering.
>> Perhaps after this text:
>>
>>>    Together, RFCs
>>>    6146 and RFC 6147 provide a viable method for an IPv6-only client to
>>>    initiate communications to an IPv4-only server.
>> we should add something like:
>>
>>    At enterprise level, operating NAT64 and DNS64 services for
>>    heavy usage may have significant practical implications.
>>
> 
> Can you be more specific? Pratical data?

Not really, because I've never operated one in real life. It doesn't
strike me as the sort of service that most enterprise network
managers will be familiar with, and a v6-only site needing a normal
level of access to v4-land would end up sending most of its external
traffic via NAT64 and most of its external DNS queries via DNS64.
Therefore, these would become an important single point of failure
and a potential bottleneck. The text doesn't seem to point this out.

   Brian

> CB
> 
>> Also, the last paragraph of section 5:
>>
>>>    It is worth noting that for IPv6-only access networks that use
>>>    technologies such as NAT64, the more content providers (and
>>>    enterprises) that make their content available over IPv6, the less
>>>    the requirement to apply NAT64 to traffic leaving the access network.
>> A reference to RFC 6883 would fit nicely there.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>