Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

[Henri Alves de Godoy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jordi,

Some comments contribute to the subject

Despite the advantages of not needing the CLAT, they are good, but this is
still a dream, it will take a long time to happen.

CLAT is still required to connect legacy devices. In addition, navigation
on devices that have only IPv6 on your device is not yet viable, as many
services will no longer be accessed.

I don't know what a 4G telecom scenario would be like, but on wireless
networks, where I've been working, I don't see a CLAT daemon on any OS
(Windows, iOS, Android) available. Convincing these manufacturers of the
need for a CLAT is an impossible task.

In my studies of the 464XLAT mechanism, I have inserted the CLAT into the
wireless network as an intermediate VM on the same network. So I don't need
CLAT on users' devices and mainly I don't need to intervene and guide in
any installation. The less you interact with users' devices the less
problems are.

Thanks
Henri



Em sex., 16 de abr. de 2021 às 15:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=
[e-mail]> escreveu:

> Hi Eduard,
>
> In order to have the CLAT enabled, something needs to triggered it in the
> phone.
>
> This usually is done because the operator profile tells that to the iOS,
> so if the operator doesn't enable that in the profile, which is *only*
> published by Apple, it will not work.
>
> Alternatively, you can enable it manually, using an Apple application
> (Apple Configurator) in a Mac and getting that phone connected to it via
> USB. This is typically done when a phone is provided to employees (so for
> example, you configure some settings, such as VPNs, some apps, etc., etc.),
> but it can be used also for "trials" when you are deploying a 464XLAT small
> pilot in an operator.
>
> As said, it is lessons learnt from actual customer projects.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
> El 16/4/21 18:41, "v6ops en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard" <
> [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>
>     I did try to instigate iOS CLAT support 1y ago - I have found many
> evidences that iOS did not support it but RFC 6535 was a good replacement,
> not a big problem. Just interesting fact of partial 464XLAT compliance.
>
>     The probability of requirement from subscribers (and commercial
> department as a result) to give subs public IPv4 is very high.
>     The number of such subs is small but the headache for Carrier to
> organize it is big.
>     Different IPv4aaS have different difficulties to organize it.
>     It could be the deciding factor in the IPv4aaS type choice.
>     But you could omit it because not every Carrier needs this problem
> resolution.
>
>     Ed/
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
>     Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 4:32 PM
>     To: [e-mail]
>     Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt
>
>     Mmm ... I don't think it was a secret!
>
>     If you're working on actual deployments, you need to configure the
> features you want to enable in the carrier config files, and then Apple
> publish it. Pretty standard Apple procedure. Alternatively, you can also
> use the Apple Mobile Configurator, for earlier testing, etc.
>
>     Many operators have been using this for about 3 years already. I don't
> recall right now the iOS version number but was 2017-2018. I believe I've
> mention this already other times in v6ops.
>
>     Because that happened several years ago, I don't think it should be
> necessary to include what OS versions, not just for Apple, for any OS,
> however I'm happy to have it if the WG believes so.
>
>     I got now your point about incoming connections examples/behavior. We
> will have some text in the next version.
>
>     I believe most of the carriers that use CGN, don't allow incoming
> connection. If you need that, you pay an alternative service and then you
> get a "persistent" IPv4.
>
>     The problem of CGN is still that if you have Sony PlayStation gamers,
> the IPv4 addresses in the CGN get into the blacklist forever, so you need
> to rotate all the IPv4 addresses in the CGNs, until you finish them. Then
> you go to the market and pay for more transfers, etc. Clearly it doesn't
> make sense. It is smarter to not install CGNs and instead directly pay for
> the transfers now, before price keeps going up.
>
>
>     Regards,
>     Jordi
>     @jordipalet
>
>
>
>     El 16/4/21 15:05, "v6ops en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard" <
> [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>
>         Hi Jordi,
>         You did bring the news about iOS that is a big secret for the
> community. What is the iOS version that supports CLAT?
>         Then it is mandatory to include such important information in the
> draft.
>
>         I am not so interested in any specific protocol. We have too many.
>         I am interested in the use case: "to initiate a connection from
> the outside to an IPv4 server that is behind translation solution".
>         We could assume that port forwarding on the CPE subscriber could
> provision himself (probably port 80). But the CPE should receive incoming
> TCP session from the internet.
>         It would probably bring onto the discussion PCP (for some
> translation technologies), but if not - I would not be much disappointed.
>         By the way, you could dispute the use case then the question is
> closed.
>         I now carriers where all subscribers do receive public IPv4 even
> now.
>         But I know Carriers that have a shortage of public IPv4 for CGNAT
> pools.
>         Of course, you could send them to buy IPv4 on the open market
> because NAT connection initiated in opposite direction is additional
> complexity.
>         You choose.
>
>         Eduard
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of JORDI
> PALET MARTINEZ
>         Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 3:20 PM
>         To: [e-mail]
>         Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt
>
>         Hi Eduard,
>
>         I think I can provide some light on this.
>
>         iOS was not supporting CLAT since a few years ago, which was a
> problem for using 464XLAT in tethering, but this is no longer true. Thanks
> to the push from several operators Apple finally implemented CLAT, which is
> only needed for the tethering, because the "similar" solution to
> bump-in-the-host resolve the problem for the apps in the iOS device.
> Further to that, this is supported because Apple took a very good decision
> long time ago (2016 I believe), to only allow in the AppStore apps that
> work in IPv6-only, so that's why the CLAT is not need for the iOS device
> itself.
>
>         Having no need for the CLAT to be enabled means lower battery
> consumption, and of course, lower CPU cost and delay if the other end is
> also using IPv6, so not NAT at all.
>
>         We have indeed some mentions about PCP and EAM in the text, not
> sure what you will like to see in the document. Could you please elaborate
> a bit more? An specific section about that or?
>
>         Regards,
>         Jordi
>         @jordipalet
>
>
>
>         El 16/4/21 14:03, "v6ops en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard" <
> [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>
>             Hi all,
>             iOS does not support 464XLAT/CLAT.
>             They do use RFC 6535 (Bump in the host) instead.
>             It is probably an important fact for 4.4.2
>
>             I am not sure that it is needed here. But there is the story
> of how to initiate a NAT connection in the opposite direction.
>             PCP (RFC 7225, RFC 6887), STUN (RFC 5389), EAM (RFC 7757),
> public IP allocation on CGNAT.
>             Different translation technologies have different
> compatibility and different tools for how to punch a hole in the opposite
> direction.
>             Some FBBs have a real shortage of public IPv4 to play with
> this.
>
>             It is a little strange that PCP (RFC 7225) has not been
> mentioned at all.
>
>             Eduard
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
>             Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:16 PM
>             To: [e-mail]
>             Cc: [e-mail]
>             Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt
>
>
>             A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories.
>             This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations WG of the
> IETF.
>
>                     Title           : Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition
> Technologies for IPv4aaS
>                     Authors         : Gabor Lencse
>                                       Jordi Palet Martinez
>                                       Lee Howard
>                                       Richard Patterson
>                                       Ian Farrer
>                 Filename        :
> draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt
>                 Pages           : 30
>                 Date            : 2021-04-15
>
>             Abstract:
>                Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to
> provide
>                customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an
> IPv6-only
>                access and/or core network.  All these technologies have
> their
>                advantages and disadvantages, and depending on existing
> topology,
>                skills, strategy and other preferences, one of these
> technologies may
>                be the most appropriate solution for a network operator.
>
>                This document examines the five most prominent IPv4aaS
> technologies
>                considering a number of different aspects to provide network
>                operators with an easy to use reference to assist in
> selecting the
>                technology that best suits their needs.
>
>
>             The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison/
>
>             There are also htmlized versions available at:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00
>
>
>             Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
> of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>
>             Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>             ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             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
>


-- 
-- 
Henri Alves Godoy
Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação
Faculdade de Ciências Aplicadas - FCA
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - UNICAMP
Fone: (19) 3701-6682