Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 29/03/2021 à 12:45, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
> ISPs that deployed IPv6, typically have dual-stack core.
> 
> IPv6-only with IPv4aaS allows them to do IPv6-only in the 
> "distribution" and/or "access", sometimes for all the subscribers,
> or only a subset (example residential vs business).

I think this might be specific to CPE deployments, and different than in
cellular.

In cellular networks, the first hop from the phone to the P-GW is often,
indeed, an IPv6-only support; in it IPv4 packets are encapsulated.  This
can be seen in the parameter PDP type that is set in the smartphone.  It
is a parameter that can and must be set by the end user in the
Parameters.  Generally, there are 3 possible PDP types: IPv4, IPv6 and
IPv4IPv6.

When the mobile operator requests the end user to set PDP type 'IPv6' in
her smartphone then one might assume a sort of 'IPv4aaS' to happen indeed.

But even then, it is not that simple.  The core network of mobile
operators are often (last time I checked) on IPv4 substrate - GTP is an
UDPv4 protocol.  In that part of the network it is no longer 'IPv4 as a
service', but 'IPv4 carried in IPv4'.

At that point, we might be talking about a 'half-full IPv4aaS', and not
really a 'full IPv4aaS'.  A 'full IPv4aaS' would be when all the
transport in the edge and core are IPv6 entirely and only.  I am afraid
that does not exist -yet - but I dont know for sure.

In CPE networks it might be different.

The questions would be:
- how to check in a CPE network whether the first hop between CPE and
   the core network is on IPv6?
- how to check in the core of the CPE network whether the transport is
   on IPv6?

Alex


  This allows to get
> rid of many IPv4 addresses and use some of them (as you will require 
> much less) in the NAT64 (in the case of 464XLAT). You can then reuse 
> those IPv4 addresses in other part of the network (example business 
> customers that require a "real" dual-stack) or even transfer them to 
> other ISPs that don't use IPv4aaS, etc.

> 
> 
> 
> El 29/3/21 12:28, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" 
> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> 
> escribió:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 29/03/2021 à 12:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>> It is not just encapsulation can be translation or combinations. 
>> See RFC8585.
> 
> It says: ""IPv4aaS" stands for "IPv4-as-a-Service", meaning 
> transition technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only 
> connectivity."
> 
> I thought the core networks of CPE operators (and mobile operators) 
> are mostly situated on an IPv4 substrate, but I might be wrong.
> 
> I have no way to check.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> El 29/3/21 12:16, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" 
>> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> 
>> escribió:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 29/03/2021 à 11:30, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>> I think most of the ISPs that reached >75% where "pre-"
>>> IPv6-only an IPv4aaS, they are based on dual-stack (even with
>>> IPv4-CGN), 6rd and DS-Lite.
>> 
>> Maybe 'IPv4aaS' is a term to mean 'IPv4 as a service', in 
>> comparison to the term 'IPv6 as a service'.  In that sense,
>> IPv4aaS means that IPv4 packets are encapsulated in IPv6 packets.
>> 
>> But from the point of 'service', there are some difficulties.
>> 
>> Free recently offered at home an option called "fixed IP V4
>> address full stack" ("adresse IP fixe V4 full-stack", fr.)  It is
>> 'full stack' in that the IP address can service all port numbers. A
>> 'non full' stack IP V4 address is probably an address where only
>> some port numbers are serviced by a CPE and the others are serviced
>> at the same IP address but at another neighboring CPE.  Here
>> again, remark that this frenglish 'full-stack' term is not related
>> to the term 'IPv4 IPv6 dual stack'.
>> 
>> Hopefully this helps towards clarifying, and not add to confusion.
>> 
>> For my part, I would like to ask whether the term 'IPv4aaS' is 
>> defined in an RFC?
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> El 29/3/21 11:13, "v6ops en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard" 
>>> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]>
>>> escribió:
>>> 
>>> Looking to the fact that RFC 8585 has specified IPv4aaS 
>>> requirements to CPE less than 2 years ago And Fixed Broadband 
>>> CPEs have 5+years refreshment cycle. I am very doubt that any 
>>> fixed carrier has achieved 75% of IPv6 up today. CPEs is the
>>> most expensive layer in carrier's networks (CPE itself +
>>> replacement cost) - very difficult to replace. Potentially, it
>>> could be India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh where we could still see
>>> many new home subscribers per year. Or China where IPv6 is
>>> national program and money are not so important.
>>> 
>>> It would be very valuable if anyone would claim the biggest % for
>>> IPv6 FBB, Even if carrier name would not be mentioned.
>>> 
>>> My expectation (not supported by facts) that FBB overnight is not
>>> more than 50%. It is definitely above 30%, because I know 
>>> example. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: v6ops 
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter 
>>> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 11:43 AM To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>>> 
>>> On 29-Mar-21 20:41, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
>>>> Do we have any fixed carrier in the world that has reached 75% 
>>>> for IPv6? It is primarily "CPE problem".
>>> 
>>> Yes, so any ISP that supplies CPEs to most of its customers could
>>> easily reach 75%. I've had an ISP-provided dual stack CPE since
>>> 2013. However, I don't have data, and I don't know if any ISPs
>>> publish such data.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>>> Mobile UE could be not compliant too, but It is a much smaller
>>>>  probability. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Vasilenko
>>>>  Eduard Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 10:34 AM To: 'JORDI PALET
>>>>  MARTINEZ' <jordi.palet=[e-mail]>; 
>>>> [e-mail] Subject: RE: [v6ops] 
>>>> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Jordi, Your last statement is probably too strong. About 
>>>> half of Mobile carriers have 464XLAT, but only a couple of
>>>> them reached 90%+. If one would think logically about this fact
>>>> then one would conclude that 90% is not easy to reach, not 
>>>> overnight. I have seen in some RFC (do not remember the
>>>> number) that 75% is easy to reach (it was supported by
>>>> numbers), but it was a few years ago - this data should be
>>>> better now because we have 20%+ CAGR for Webservers IPv6
>>>> support. Hence, the truth is probably somewhere between 75% and
>>>> 90%. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: v6ops
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
>>>> MARTINEZ Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 11:20 PM To:
>>>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [v6ops] 
>>>> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>>>> 
>>>> I can confirm that ... just say it in my previous email ...
>>>> 
>>>> Note also that for residential ISPs, reaching IPv6 levels
>>>> close to 90% is trivial. It happens overnight, because the big
>>>> volume of traffic to CDNs such as Netflix, Youtube/Google,
>>>> Facebook, Akamai, etc., etc. which have already IPv6 on.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> El 28/3/21 21:25, "v6ops en nombre de Lencse Gábor" 
>>>> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> 
>>>> escribió:
>>>> 
>>>> However, a statement like:
>>>> 
>>>> "For this reason, when IPv4 traffic is vanishingly small (e.g. 
>>>> less than 1%), it would be better to switch to the IPv6-only 
>>>> stage."
>>>> 
>>>> seems to be trivial.
>>>> 
>>>> Can we state something stronger?
>>>> 
>>>> For example:
>>>> 
>>>> "For this reason, when IPv6 increases to a certain limit (e.g. 
>>>> more than 90%), it would be better to switch to the IPv6-only 
>>>> stage."
>>>> 
>>>> Rationale: - Introducing an IPv4aaS technology has its costs, 
>>>> but the selling of the lions share of the public IPv4
>>>> addresses brings in more money. - The maintenance cost of the
>>>> IPv4aaS solution is less than that of a complete IPv4 network.
>>>> 
>>>> I do not state that it is true, I just ask, if it can be true.
>>>>  Because if it is so, then it could be a better guidance.
>>>> 
>>>> Gábor
>>>> 
>>>> 28/03/2021 20:47 keltezéssel, Brian E Carpenter írta:
>>>>> On 28-Mar-21 21:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>>>>> Yes and not … IPv6 in IPv4 (6in4, proto41, etc.) … 6over4 
>>>>>> is another protocol.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agree, right thing is to use IPv6-only and IPv4aaS, I was 
>>>>>> just saying that Free was the initiation of 6RD and they 
>>>>>> were using that. I’m not saying they still use the same or 
>>>>>> they should keep using the same.
>>>>> But please consider that if an operator is already
>>>>> supporting its customers using classical dual stack or a
>>>>> solid solution like 6rd, there may be no good reason to
>>>>> change for the next ten years or more. Dual stack has no time
>>>>> limit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think this statement in the draft: "For this reason, when 
>>>>> IPv6 increases to a certain limit, it would be better to 
>>>>> switch to the IPv6-only stage." is too vague to be useful. 
>>>>> Switching costs might be very high, including loss of 
>>>>> customers. In fact, the criterion for switching might be as 
>>>>> simple as "when IPv4 traffic is vanishingly small."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brian
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jordi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @jordipalet
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> El 28/3/21 9:14, "v6ops en nombre de [e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> en nombre de
>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 6rd is a mode of IPv6 over IPv4, it is opposite to the 
>>>>>> concept of "IPv4 as a Service" of IPv6-only, so it should 
>>>>>> be replaced to make IPv6 as a univeral and underlying 
>>>>>> network protocol gradually.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chongfeng
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
>>>>>> <mailto:jordi.palet=[e-mail]>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *Date:* 2021-03-25 17:15
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Free was using 6RD initially, not sure if they turned into
>>>>>>  dual-stack, may be with IPv4 via CGN.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jordi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @jordipalet
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> El 24/3/21 17:23, "v6ops en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu"
>>>>>>  <[e-mail] en nombre de 
>>>>>> [e-mail]> escribió:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le 24/03/2021 à 16:59, Gabor LENCSE a écrit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Alex,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 3/24/2021 4:12 PM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: [...]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Does IPv6 mandate the use of DNS64 and NAT64?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Of course, not. :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So I agree with you about that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There are several IPv4 as a Services solutions exist. We
>>>>>>>  have
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> covered the five most prominent ones 464XLAT, DS-Lite, 
>>>>>>> MAP-E, MAP-T
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> and lw4o6 in our I-D:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-06
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Your ISP is likely using one of them.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For clarification - my ISP is called 'Free' (it has freedom
>>>>>> features).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They offer me paid IPv4 and IPv6 native access at home on 
>>>>>> ADSL. It's
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> one publicly routable IPv4 address and an IPv6 /56 prefix 
>>>>>> globally
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> routable prefix (a 'GUP' if I can say so, not a 
>>>>>> GUA'(ddress)).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Up to now, looking through the configuration interface of 
>>>>>> my freebox at
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> home I could not see the options that you mention (464XLAT,
>>>>>> DSLITE,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> MAP-E, MAP-T, lw4o6).  One might say that they are there 
>>>>>> invisible, but
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I doubt that, I need a proof of it.  How can I check for 
>>>>>> presence of
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> options 464XLAT, DSLITE, MAP-E, MAP-T or lw4o6?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The problems that appear when I try to browse IPv6 sites 
>>>>>> that absolutely
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> need IPv4 might be because I turned off the IPv4 stack on 
>>>>>> my computer's
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> interface (Windows Properties on the Interface, check off 
>>>>>> IPv4).  This
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> operation (turning off IPv4 in a computer) is possible
>>>>>> only on Windows,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> not on linux, AFAIR.  One cant do 'rmmod ipv4' in linux.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That also explains the fact that installing IPv4-IPv6 
>>>>>> translation boxes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (NAT64, 464LAT, etc.) in a network is not sufficient to 
>>>>>> access IPv4
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> sites from an IPv6-only computer.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In order to access IPv4 sites from IPv6-only computers one 
>>>>>> also needs
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the IPv4 stack to work ok on that computer and, moreover, 
>>>>>> it needs some
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> times software features in the Client that support the 64::
>>>>>> notation of
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IPv6 addresses.  For example, thunderbird (a very modern 
>>>>>> MUA) does not
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> understand it and gets confused by it.  It takes it for an
>>>>>>  fqdn, and
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> does not even try to connect the translation boxes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This means that if one wants to migrate more to IPv6 then 
>>>>>> one has to
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> think about the NAT64 and 464XLAT concepts more outside of 
>>>>>> the cellular
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> network concept.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And yes, I agree with you, NAT64 and 464XLAT are good
>>>>>> tools to
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> migrate.  In particular, if one is on a smartphone or other
>>>>>> computer
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> using an OS that cant turn off their IPv4 stacks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gábor
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops 
>>>>>>> mailing list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [e-mail] 
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> **********************************************
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IPv4 is over
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The IPv6 Company
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be 
>>>>>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to 
>>>>>> be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above 
>>>>>> and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
>>>>>>  distribution or use of the contents of this information, 
>>>>>> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
>>>>>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If 
>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any 
>>>>>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>>>>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached 
>>>>>> files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a 
>>>>>> criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender 
>>>>>> to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops 
>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail] 
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ********************************************** IPv4 is
>>>>>> over Are you ready for the new Internet ? 
>>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be 
>>>>>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to 
>>>>>> be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above 
>>>>>> and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
>>>>>>  distribution or use of the contents of this information, 
>>>>>> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
>>>>>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If 
>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any 
>>>>>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>>>>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached 
>>>>>> files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a 
>>>>>> criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender 
>>>>>> to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops 
>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail] 
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing
>>>>> list [e-mail] 
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>>> list [e-mail] 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ********************************************** IPv4 is over
>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
>>>> 
>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be 
>>>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be 
>>>> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and 
>>>> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, 
>>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even 
>>>> if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited 
>>>> and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the 
>>>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
>>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even 
>>>> if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>>>> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must
>>>> reply to the original sender to inform about this communication
>>>> and delete it.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>  _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>>> list [e-mail] 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops 
>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are 
>>> you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 
>>> The IPv6 Company
>>> 
>>> This electronic message contains information which may be 
>>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
>>> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and
>>> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
>>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and
>>> will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
>>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will
>>> be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
>>> original sender to inform about this communication and delete
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing 
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>>  [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are
>> you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The
>> IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be 
>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for 
>> the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further 
>> non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use 
>> of the contents of this information, even if partially, including 
>> attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a 
>> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents 
>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, 
>> is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so 
>> you must reply to the original sender to inform about this 
>> communication and delete it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>>  [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you 
> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 
> Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents 
> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If
> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,
> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>