IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338AE1B2B74 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 MMgx5nmV1m26 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D6A01B2B7E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2219; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427845565; x=1429055165; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=HohcIAW5PKOyCW2HuKYb9H5LEWtZqeaHwDyN6z8uVa8=; b=R87sNl2C069+AxfdV75dvQP6SlDSG1baAIwnikI1fzPtGBUeYZqp1WHI V6Kj3vrsbB2c0/xFQx7/ihdqgghe/TSsWgqZNSmdlLkdLLnktDF0EXad4 0dcPj/pBx3w3QvwzG4W6n2rXXpXlNl85q48JBMrBqgHlIP5BFtpcXcJUb Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ARBQDYMBtV/51dJa1cgwaBLgWDD8hlAoE4TAEBAQEBAX2EFAEBAQMBI0QSBQsCAQgYKgICIRElAgQOBQ6IDQMJCLRvk0gNhVABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXiymCR4IxB4JoL4EWBZBigWyBMoUKgU2BHYxzgmODSCKDbm8BgUN/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,503,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="137153802"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2015 23:46:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2VNk3hR031102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:46:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.67]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:46:03 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory
Thread-Index: AQHQbAzYG5JVINnTs0uV0Ah8LpbStw==
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:46:02 +0000
Message-ID: <B7AD5376-A2CF-43DF-9A84-B75CFDDBD6FF@cisco.com>
References: <D1401A6F.90498%Lee@asgard.org> <551AF135.3060602@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <551AF135.3060602@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_866AEE8A-F6E6-491A-8281-CEE25D3EA513"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Y55VJwW9X6VQgiyjZunybUkdEQE>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:48:34 -0000

> On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> However, I also wonder whether the transit and core operators, who carry
> globally-addressed IPv4 traffic around for other networks, will eventually
> move away from pure ships-in-the-night dual stack operation. For example,
> will they eventually find it inconvenient to use IPv4 for "control plane"
> purposes, and so use IPv6 for all network management? In that case they
> will also be operating IPv4 only as a service.

That’s a question you would have to ask them. I don’t know.

But I’m not sure you’re using the same definition I am for IPv4 as a service. If I understand your penultimate sentences, in a network that carries multiple data types (I don’t know, Netware, CLNS, IPv4, IPv6, whatever) and uses exactly one of them to manage the network, the one is fundamental and the others are “a service”.

The definition I’m using is in the data plane. Does the network carry IPv4 as IPv4, or IPv4 as some variation on IPv6? If it carries IPv4 translated to or encapsulated in IPv6, IPv4 is (according to me) a service.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email