IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 24 November 2021 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 546943A0B68 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:03:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3fXZjwf8wdkU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 083A33A0B35 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (77.16.37.216.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.37.216]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BABA4E11C86; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 09:03:20 +0100
Message-Id: <932B1725-6BA9-4C2E-AE45-6C8DECB640B5@employees.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19B74)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WI2JOhJb6Jf96kWDnLdFiYWk4CU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?
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: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:03:31 -0000


> On 24 Nov 2021, at 03:26, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Is there any data on what IPv4aaS transition mechanisms are deployed by ISPs today? I was approached by a router vendor asking me "how they should provide IPv6-only" and I was looking for data on which mechanisms are most common

IPv4aaS != IPv6 only. 

I doubt you will get an answer here. This is a bike shedding argument as good as any. 

They should check out what’s deployed in their target market. Just like any other feature. 

O.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email