Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 08 August 2013 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 A2B5221F9928 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NxXIM+5WFxDw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221BD21F9D04 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=605; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375988530; x=1377198130; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=noecZ6vBktaALLwMisyGHp6o2wKj/04tp6hIBnaEREM=; b=D2ksVWZKGnHPmjCNf3hD/IK6ayTl6waK5SBxMdkhiE+lteK2D6Ig/yvs cZ86BCHowVGK96S2g3QmsZ5eF1SqBv0Yi9XD2nbA2LknDyriKMsL0jGTa 6hjMbTBrdZfvZkwAQAJgHbZ+5tHHd04zCYRZD26zSXpzjTgxf1pi9/Dmd I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao0FANTpA1KtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABbgwY1UIJNu36BGhZ0giQBAQEDATo/BQsCAQgOFBQQMiUCBA4FCIgCBgy4dY9oAjEHgxp0A5kLkCWBX4E5gio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,840,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="245272532"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2013 19:02:09 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r78J29So015311 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:02:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.235]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:02:09 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
Thread-Index: AQHOlGnHgZzdktrmVk21qxmqmvPlwg==
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:02:08 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B97A0E3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <5200804D.2050006@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTGL9JVK6egOAVXhMFv77L0b=9eVjKAauwNzLnaM=Mcyw@mail.gmail.com> <52031D69.3070604@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTAJVvmG_byRMW_F2g+WDBvdRLop_oLshgwbUsfBjRzbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJh1q+sJB00yo7HsFifWb=42teg_ga4CjRQVVecU1emcDA@mail.gmail.com> <5203C7E5.3060106@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <5203C7E5.3060106@globis.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.137]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E63B5C72B8991D409C993246D9347CD0@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:02:32 -0000

On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> wrote:

> Why would anyone in their right mind chose to deploy NAT64/DNS64 in a commercial environment given the prices I've seen for that functionality?

The place I generally see it called out is between an IPv6-only (portion of a) network and an IPv4-only (portion of a) network. This may be interesting reading - and in a few weeks I'll be seeking opinions on it.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience
  "NAT64 Operational Experiences", Gang Chen, Zhen Cao, Chongfeng Xie,
  David Binet, 2013-07-08