Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

If you have IPv6-only access network, which is what 464XLAT is offering, you have 100% IPv6-only in the access network.

What you have at the customer sites/LANs and core/transit, is a different history.

This is the reason we need to have a clear definition … I will try to update the document this week:

draft-palet-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-only

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: lunes, 25 de septiembre de 2017, 11:21
Para: <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

    
    
    Le 25/09/2017 à 11:05, Kossut Tomasz - Hurt a écrit :
    > Hi,
    > 
    > True ! 464xlat enabled IPv6 transition for mobile networks. Thank you ! 
    > In IPv6-only network you can expect up to 60% native IPv6
    
    ? I thought in an IPv6-only network there is 100% native IPv6?
    
    Alex
    
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > 
    > TK
    > 
    > *From:*Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]]
    > *Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2017 3:55 AM
    > *To:* Mark Andrews
    > *Cc:* Gert Doering; [e-mail] WG
    > *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
    > 
    > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail] 
    > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
    > 
    > Stop exaggerating.  Google went and added CLAT to the Android.  They
    > can just as easily add DS-Lite to Android and we would have billions
    > of machines that support DS-Lite.  Just because NAT64 and 464XLAT are
    > sexy doesn't mean that it is good technology.
    > 
    > We added 464xlat to Android because there were credible deployment plans 
    > in place for 464xlat on real networks that Android devices connect to. 
    > In hindsight, we were right, as 464xlat went from credible plan to 
    > successful deployment with an installed base in the tens of millions.
    > 
    > I personally think that if we had not done this, we wouldn't have 
    > IPv6-only mobile networks today and we'd all still be lamenting the 
    > chicken and egg problem for IPv6-only networks. Getting rid of IPv4 in 
    > the network is a great step forward, and as Apple has shown, once that's 
    > happened, host OSes can start removing IPv4 access from applications, 
    > too. (And make no mistake: without 464xlat, those networks would *not* 
    > have gone IPv6-only, and it would have been much harder, or even 
    > impossible, for Apple to say that apps must operate in IPv6-only 
    > environments, because there would have been no such environments.)
    > 
    > DS-Lite has no such credible deployment plans in place. Wifi networks 
    > are going to provide IPv4 for many years. Mobile networks were never 
    > going to deploy DS-Lite because the encapsulation would have broken 
    > their billing platforms. And so, here we are.
    > 
    > We'll all get to IPv6-only eventually, and some time after that, we'll 
    > get rid of IPv4. At that time, you can salt the earth over 464xlat if 
    > you want. But until then, I wouldn't be too eager to bash 464xlat as a 
    > technology. It was the right thing to do at the time.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > v6ops mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    > 
    
    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.