IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Mon, 25 September 2017 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 94A9C13301F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 20:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.077
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 E_CoaAodvfR6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob09.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob09.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.47]) (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 3D747132620 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob09.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v8P3ViGT023325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 23:31:44 -0400
Received: (qmail 13451 invoked by uid 0); 25 Sep 2017 03:31:44 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 97.46.129.6
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.248.246.179?) (lee@asgard.org@97.46.129.6) by 0 with ESMTPA; 25 Sep 2017 03:31:37 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:45:37 -0400
Message-Id: <FA8911A1-CE3E-40E2-A11F-12303A3B4D1C@asgard.org>
References: <D5E8043B.86B21%lee@asgard.org> <E48DDA04-C058-4992-906E-8C8BC0E102AB@consulintel.es> <1BFA3605-4B16-4331-A7BA-3BDECBCA64EC@gmail.com> <85868796-18C7-48F4-BE69-8D50A1F47EF3@jisc.ac.uk> <472CC0F7-73C2-4A21-8F96-BBC966B01B77@employees.org> <de6b9aac-a3cc-0915-77c7-9fb880c3a16a@gmail.com> <20170921223305.B72A8878E716@rock.dv.isc.org> <122454EE-64C5-4768-A6A9-1AD0E872F5F9@employees.org> <2a879713-bfd0-2ba0-cb67-53726f6e1faf@gmail.com> <41c808ef-b2c0-6e74-e61d-e89fcebe5e0a@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <41c808ef-b2c0-6e74-e61d-e89fcebe5e0a@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14G60)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/c9OO2VRJI4XUPJ0jiQ61qAUgg3U>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:31:48 -0000

Personal opinion...


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:08 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> Yet a common denominator among Current Practices of transitioninig is:
> double stack.
> 
> A smartphone runs ok native IPv4 and native IPv6 simultaneously, without
> needing translations nor encapsulations nor DNS v6-v4 mappings.
> 
> Is double stack BCP?

Dual stack doesn't solve the problem IPv6 was created to solve, which is the lack of available IPv4 addresses. 

> 
> A few RFCs mentioning "dual stack" seem to be on StdsTrack (not BCP).
> They seem all to involve some tunnelling or translation.
> 
> But double stack, understood as coexisting simultaneous use of IPv4 and
> IPv6 independently, on the same Computer, without tunnelling, nor
> translation, nor DNSv46 - could very well be a BCP.

At best it could be a Brief Current Practice on the way to IPv6 only. In most cases there will be another step: IPv6 plus translation. 

There's no single best way to manage IPv4 exhaustion. It's stinks, and is going to stink more. 

Lee


> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email