Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 23 Jan. 2018 7:37 am, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

After watching this debate, I'm asking myself why we want to anything
other than
a) watch the market deciding for itself, and


I think with so much choice, the market has trouble making a choice. It
becomes less risky to make no choice (meaning no IPv6 deployment at all)
compared to the risks of making the wrong choice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overchoice

Regards,
Mark.


b) formally deprecate anything we decide is broken.

   Brian
On 23/01/2018 09:23, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> What's the purpose of what you are trying to do?
>
> This started out as a question among the chairs, triggered in part by an
academic article that I can't share because it's not public yet. It lists
26 different transition mechanisms and tries to make recommendations, based
in large part of recommendations we have made. The question started out as
"can we narrow that to one such mechanism? Which ones are actually in use?"
Now see the spreadsheet Lee shared, which comes from different data.
>
> It sounds like Ole's data on 6rd needs to get reflected in Lee's
spreadsheet.
>
> After quite a bit of discussion, we think we had pretty much re-invented
RFC 6180. The discussion isn't over, but I suspect we're close. So Lee
asked for opinions from you guys.
>
> And BTW, I suspect that dslite is a little long in the tooth for the same
reason. The theory with both 6rd and dslite was/is that once there is a
native path from here to there, even if the dslite configuration is still
in the network it's unlikely to be used. That might be naive :-)
>
> The big question among the chairs is "what is the real case for
translation?" We see it in a variety of places, basically creating a way
for IPv6-only devices or networks to talk with IPv4-only devices or
networks, but wondering if there is a better way to proceed. My personal
take is "it is what it is, no worse than IPv4/IPv4 translation" - not
arguing for it, but considering it a fact of life until people become
motivated to replace it with native systems and connectivity. YMMV.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops