Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - "Transition to IPv6"

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 31D043A12FB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 cmbS8DtoBPZV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BAF3A12F1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kiev.delong.com (kiev.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:5]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02C8KJZE1850713 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:19 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <3567F570-BC40-470E-971B-2368E1ACD80C@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:19 -0700
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1FC68A89-A5E2-4FF3-836C-5AEC3D295299@delong.com>
References: <e8a25961-5ac9-d35e-77dd-bf86f45cd077@gmail.com> <7eb4dc25-28a6-4927-2356-846e200681d2@gmail.com> <0791D4B0-8390-48D7-AF0A-CE004EC3224C@consulintel.es> <ccc75efb-8c00-ee97-5cc7-2e061e6e5a54@gmail.com> <52b6b9a4f46a49598eccee1b35e5efc5@irs.gov> <89127c25-9c51-c4bb-97ae-3567e80a4c52@gmail.com> <43D0E5A1-E5C5-4ACA-A44D-BC2F67129174@delong.com> <3567F570-BC40-470E-971B-2368E1ACD80C@gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PeyEw2JiGs1GVokCjgxcoBkC41Q>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - "Transition to IPv6"
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:20:27 -0000


> On Mar 11, 2020, at 19:06 , Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 5, 2020, at 8:46 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you very much for the pointer.  In it I could spot
>>> the following footnote: "[4] IPv6-Only refers to network environments in
>>> which use of the IPv4 protocol has been eliminated.”
>> 
>> IPv6-Only refers to network environments which are not using IPv4. That could be a network where IPv4 has been eliminated (rare at this time, though Facebook is a significant example) or it could be a greenfield deployment where IPv4 was never deployed.
> 
> <sans hats>
> 
> This, I think, is where the v6ops discussion has travelled in circles forever. To me, I would drop the word "network" and say that it is a specified environment. If I say that a system is IPv6-only, it is not using IPv6 internally or externally. It might or might not have IPv4 code in it, but it's not using it. If I say that a LAN, building, etc is IPv6-only, it is not to say that it couldn't have IPv4 in it if a DHCP server started handing out such addresses, but that it *doesn't*. If it is an Autonomous System, it means that only IPv6 is in use in that domain.
> 
> As soon as we get into the "but it could" or "was it translated from something else" or whatever rathole, we're into a discussion of angels, pins, and heads of pins. It will not end, because it can't. Someone will forever come up with a "what if" scenario to stir the pot.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I would have the user of the term identify the environment s/he is talking about, and say that *within*that*domain* communication is entirely accomplished using IPv6.
> 
> And STOP.

It seems to me that you are saying essentially the same thing I intended to say, Fred.

My key point was that IPv6-only could mean either of:

	+	Any environment where IPv4 usage has been discontinued and IPv6 is the sole remaining active protocol
OR
	+	Any environment where IPv4 was never deployed and IPv6 is the only protocol ever deployed

It was in response to a statement that IPv6-only could only mean an environment where IPv4 once existed and had been removed.

Owen