[v6ops] Comments on draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Paolo Volpato <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG,
Following on Ron's message, we have listed here the comments shared during the discussion of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment  at the past v6ops session, trying to address them.
Please feel free to comment on; any feedback could be useful to add further considerations in the draft.

Alexandre wondered if 5G can be seen as a business motivator for IPv6, posing doubts on that. Actually, we too think 5G by itself is not the reason for that. From an application perspective, 5G can be seen as a framework to enable new apps or services (or even more users to use them) that may require more addresses. In this sense 5G could help the transition to an IPv6-only network.

Michael noted that people active in the enterprise area were not present. True: Nalini contributed greatly to version 01 of the draft while we worked more on other sections in version 02. We agree that more on enterprise can be shared.

Jordi provided an explanation for the unadvertised IPv4 addresses. A reason why we think more investigation is needed is that the assumptions may all be true but don't fully explain the trend. In case you missed the pointer, here you find the useful info: https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2021-01/addr2020.html. The number of unadvertised addresses at Dec 2020 is around 50 /8 and it has grown in the last 3 years. Even considering the litigations, transfers, quarantine, etc. it is hard to achieve that peak and, what it is worse, doesn't explain the constant growth. A large bunch of addresses in quarantine, when released, should cause some fluctuations, but there are no clear signs for that.

Alexandre also observed the necessity to have a check tool to verify that IPv6 is really deployed when requested. Fully agree. Today it is hard to think of that but maybe in a near future that could be possible. Is there any way to involve National regulators in our work?

Jen commented that having IPv6-only clients doesn't imply a reason to deploy IPv6 (we assume in the underlay). Indeed; let us just echo what Fred said at the beginning of the session about pushing IPv6 more in the overlay. Probably we have achieved, for the first time, the end-to-end availability of IPv6 content. We have IPv6 devices at the user's side and IPv6-based content provided by content providers often based on an IPv6 DC infrastructure. This overlay is where services are offered and where the IPv6 customer base can be expanded. In between we have the networks (the underlay). A good move could be to turn them IPv6(-capable) but even if they stay IPv4, they can survive (even if it is not the optimal choice). The overlay offers more possibilities.

Any further comment from the list is very much appreciated.

Paolo

From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 2:49 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment


Folks,



Each week between now and IETF 111, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it.



This week, please review and comment on draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment.



                                                             Fred and Ron





Juniper Business Use Only