IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

otroan@employees.org Thu, 30 September 2021 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 CF5293A0E15 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 kPsR12R3sNTZ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D45D3A0DDE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (ti0389q160-5225.bb.online.no [95.34.0.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D21294E11B31; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:38:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42F961FE820; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:38:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <B310356B-3CD7-4FDB-BF57-E5123E8414B2@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6FDD369F-88A1-4EDA-94FE-BF6EAA564EB9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:38:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: <46b0b83a-b6cf-f9f2-4686-a6ff695c5d6f@hit.bme.hu>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
To: Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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> <YVXvgS6GDX97sHOW@Space.Net> <46b0b83a-b6cf-f9f2-4686-a6ff695c5d6f@hit.bme.hu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/g-ubP9AYB-ub-AfpWPOMPJXT9JY>
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 17:38:37 -0000

>> IPv6-only without a NAT64 gateway is not workable today.
> Well, it depends on, how you define "IPv6-only". If we are talking about "IPv6-only access and core network", any of the 5 IPv4aaS solutions (464XLAT, DS-Lite, MAP-T, MAP-E, Lw4o6) may be used, and only 464XLAT uses a stateful NAT64 gateway.

I was referring to IPv6 only as meaning IPv6 end to end.
Which is the only case where an application would benefit from IPv6.

O.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email