IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 6AB37135274 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 J0lbi88rs7Qh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67419135266 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q80so121172ywg.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Pkd80173K6YlV4R1SmVvjY/eskCkkbb2GIEDQ04OSvk=; b=FBWjOAwMPHAdz0+yoOrqgZJ25dPXQEeMQmDsoPV+Cbp4J+jgJfYvW2nvVjdrA6skHw cyVwbye4PGE9jGYyWDQr6tz7fiAgbcE3kZv5yIHJcQDAnYCpbVFhPBB+uS8ScHXVj2Wx TQJW5UE+qNtIWlL27/2jB37iffJm3idXy7WWu2i3vLS+OjHKwPQ/P/vVUftRukT77dSA EiNNJWcKHi5B46xRc96mXYphe6FhSnPUomOVdotCWqxUrg+pplPDxI3XEOrzLh7TqXRi 6NGGZ7wHVS/hWQlINC/kRmbYcDmRL08Es1S7pT2Dvb1Vsw0XFFjlxeUE2T2Wviwh6Gt7 9BLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Pkd80173K6YlV4R1SmVvjY/eskCkkbb2GIEDQ04OSvk=; b=N2BjGbH1ArxaM75R3C5EXoDAcfRS8bg1uy1qbzpwyD7ut/As27qiuiVbGuGJJU05iA NXHtUTASITzAL9SLLgwfQqWdeY+Sy42DY0R6QtZZz7QmQtL34dc2OBZKMGKakzunFobZ jNn3bGd8LVOGWfvAm3PzBVnFlFjFwIJsx8b1qNCapkmpY9FPrtA1nz59BYISMJdTbs+9 tZladi/lHpMMzlM/ZthXkyGDSCHr3NhI5dvWo2TQzx9BQqUvWeSW7vIR4eVcopUSDVXz fTno3V2hB68U6fW+kpDspmr6ElF4X6aGUCmAEnzRC6IIvjXWPWoTX1KBumCmrJ1YBwb7 4VpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjzYTZEozHEUYgrU4+7N8FVBwaxyJy65Q759B8NSbaGh/TUhdx9 6OXk0R5/tocAVPLNhCnA73mXBvKtsVyXUnLH3knBHQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBz/5GzmZsXJqPI8tyDFrtTW58OewO3isbkH87Ho5nH+etiS8szaPes3tJ51dI+aKEqoFmqIOiNY3ba7hE5lvs=
X-Received: by 10.37.16.193 with SMTP id 184mr2456522ybq.178.1506566952320; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.214.213 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQdMFgv4727wHm41HmEyo2Z-PCabPHPSRSVwOi_rey7OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <LO1P123MB01168388285206BB7C26F029EA7A0@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <46045DAA-9096-43BA-A5FD-571232767726@google.com> <CAKD1Yr3vziaHfkR+hQ7QHXaz7QraKH2HLUVXUW63GpnOAj4JoQ@mail.gmail.com> <E72C3FBE-57A4-4058-B9E5-F7392C9E9101@google.com> <LO1P123MB0116805F9A18932E2D0694FEEA780@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1496304E-54BE-47FA-A7F1-1AA6E163DAB1@employees.org> <CAD6AjGQdMFgv4727wHm41HmEyo2Z-PCabPHPSRSVwOi_rey7OQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:48:51 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr03zsuSBqPegs6RNbBqnJizUOLZwH+rNDi1Ocg4k+mARQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: "Heatley, N, Nick, TQB R" <nick.heatley@bt.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113eddba0687b3055a36f4c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/SHog92DKLi4QEqOSNUPqAqyzKPk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)
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: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 02:49:15 -0000

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

> And, i will reinterate an important point Nick made. The majority of
> traffic goes e2e ipv6. A minority of traffic requires NAT64/DNS64. And a
> sliver of traffic requires 464XLAT or 4464.  Those numbers are all growing
> in the right direction, more e2e v6.
>

What he said. For many operators, the choice was between a) 60% (and
growing) native IPv6 traffic, 30% NAT64 traffic, and 5% NAT464 traffic, and
b) 100% NAT44 traffic.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email