IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Why enterprises aren't adopting IPv6 (Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Thu, 30 September 2021 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 65B4E3A0EE5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=space.net
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 oomz4hB2eTD9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper1-relay.space.net (gatekeeper1-relay.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:3:85::38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46D853A0E08 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=space.net; i=@space.net; q=dns/txt; s=esa; t=1633021829; x=1664557829; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=c602foGihKAkfRgPBKr7TDpGk6/1iJYFEB1QhlfBJ5Y=; b=gBhtk3/kD1H8KnqJiFmlg6/SM1cu3ybQr0s0manr8Ta4aHx1C7NZAXOe +8X8KzLhustF/jZvk/YiIKwcw6hzoSd+r+SvaO8gIBuQX+IGg8q8cDnB+ qvPTnwXkbG0F+ap2wDO+Fl6bkoXj7bmwkpH2eVHupUKPJwJ7M5gEIball MM4HV6CSHmtkdMvBb5ZZTw7rXWTRA30oCn5t8QA0uFA+urxjuaPEk5XlK r6Bx8I3drYHfinnMt8Baz/GdbsPleNEe1pXLOLs2QYlEPaOSZSE4YvHqj 0ivh6813FbxE0w51+Xx5Oc3cOk9Un0V8xg0zKnY21qi/YBwMkSxvd8Vxf g==;
X-SpaceNet-SBRS: None
Received: from mobil.space.net ([195.30.115.67]) by gatekeeper1-relay.space.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Sep 2021 19:10:26 +0200
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A8643D01 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:10:25 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB01043CFE; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:10:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id B45A811BCEB; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:10:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:10:25 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen=40delong.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, Jen Linkova <furry@google.com>
Message-ID: <YVXvgS6GDX97sHOW@Space.Net>
References: <CAO42Z2wdoSdJDOB2Zo0=ZK0ecOARRsdg2nbHZGSDOhryPbLfDw@mail.gmail.com> <F2BD0A42-E9AD-45DD-999A-638E73BE1177@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr2K3Gd3JD=NJFOoH6GYgs-8ACxRQB9-sKJ7cbF4_hxsow@mail.gmail.com> <0B533C71-5DB0-410D-A5A3-7E8FD559F214@delong.com> <CAKD1Yr3NoYfNT7+OVJoCCdgdif6AHHw29tNCPttS=-NuRZKv3w@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB692426B0EEDDC2C4D78D8EC0C3A89@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr25dtinLBeJpAuJ17NfLg7-ewM9QPvnXNuEJ8wiBQV9ig@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zqf=F6OTDK2e8cMYXdPgMZ=SgFJcn7BTKYGgcYsLT2iw@mail.gmail.com> <894BCFE9-0811-4AE6-9941-6183292E4431@delong.com> <7E8C5F52-596F-4CAB-89EB-B0D5BAF5F612@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BZB2NUIwJvxLE4FO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7E8C5F52-596F-4CAB-89EB-B0D5BAF5F612@employees.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZBsEgRtjgrk2LgZ_m2a3KNskYMQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Why enterprises aren't adopting IPv6 (Re: Implementation Status of PREF64)
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: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:10:48 -0000

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 07:04:18PM +0200, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> typically they only use a 1/65535th of an IPv4 address ((one TCP port) although they share it at L7).
> it would certainly be possible to improve on that.

Is that our goal?  

Make CGNAT44 solutions scale to amazeballs level, to avoid deploying IPv6?

[..]
> last time I tried going IPv6 only, that was completely unworkable.
> (while doing IPv4 only is perfectly fine.)

IPv6-only without a NAT64 gateway is not workable today.

IPv4-only is not workable either - if you need/want to access resources
that sit behind a DS-Lite ISP connection which has unhindered IPv6, and
CGNAT'ed IPv4...

[..]
> that's what we have been saying for 25 years.
> perhaps time to accept reality. ;-)

So what would that be?  "Sell more NAT boxes, give up on IPv6"?

There's certainly more money to be made, in helping panicking customers
sort out their NAT444 mess "we are losing millions every hour!"...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email