Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison

Dear All,

I have read draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-02 and I found it useful and 
I support its adoption.

I have found a typo at the bottom of page 18:

"Yet, this worsening effect may appea_e_ as disturbing for a plain 
transition to IPv6." --> "Yet, this worsening effect may appea*r* as 
disturbing for a plain transition to IPv6."

Regarding IPv6 Security in Section 11.4, I think it is also worth 
considering the additional security issues brought into existence by the 
applied IPv6 transition technologies used to implement IPv4aaS, like 
464XLAT, DS-Lite, etc. You can find some basic hints in our paper:

G. Lencse and Y. Kadobayashi, "Methodology for the identification of 
potential security issues of different IPv6 transition technologies: 
Threat analysis of DNS64 and stateful NAT64", /Computers & Security/ 
(Elsevier), vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 397-411, August 1, 2018, DOI: 
10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.012

Available from: 
http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECS-2018-Methodology-revised.pdf

As for our draft, draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-06, I am 
working on an RFC 8219 compliant performance measurement tool to be able 
to add relevant data to Section 5 about Performance Comparison. I have 
just prepared the very much alpha state version of a stateful NAT64 
tester, by enabling siitperf for stateful tests: 
https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf/tree/stateful

It is capable of benchmarking both stateful NAT64 and stateful NAT44 
(CGNAT) implementations. Its documentation is to be updated yet, but I 
am glad the help, if any you would like to use it.

Best regards,

Gábor

p.s.: I have corrected the subject line, as I think Fred intended to 
include both drafts in it.

On 3/27/2021 1:05 PM, Xipengxiao wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I support the adoption of both drafts, as they provide (1) useful information about the current deployment status of IPv6, and (2) useful information for operators to consider while deploying IPv6.   With almost 500 IPv6-related RFCs, it's difficult for IPv6-deployers to find all the relevant information.  So these summary-and-advice types of  documents are useful for our industry at this stage.
>
> XiPeng
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 5:58 AM
>> To: v6ops@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison@ietf.org; draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-
>> deployment@ietf.org
>> Subject: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-
>> deployment
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2021, at 1:39 AM, Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>>> For lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison, on behalf of the authors of draft-vf-
>> v6ops-ipv6-deployment I can say we are in favor of the WG adoption. Not
>> only is it a good description of the transition technologies to IPv6, but it also
>> constitutes a basis for our draft.
>>
>> OK, let me put this to the working group. We asked about adoption of draft-
>> lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison once before (in January 2020), and got
>> essentially no response. It has come up on the list twice since, in July and in
>> November. The authors of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment would like to see
>> it adopted. The two sets of authors are disjoint. I therefore have at least nine
>> people that would like to see us adopt and publish it. What other folks have
>> opinions, pro or con?
>>
>> Along the same lines, are there opinions regarding the adoption of draft-vf-
>> v6ops-ipv6-deployment?
>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-lmhp-v6ops-
>> transition-comparison%22
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-
>> deployment%22
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops