Re: [v6ops] IPv6 mostly for DS-Lite

This is pretty much why I've been arguing about NPTv6: we've created a
situation where you have to implement many different things in order to be
sure of success. I don't think we should perpetuate that. To me, the reason
for running V6-mostly is that your ISP is actually delivering V6, and it's
the primary service, with IPv4 as a service on top of it. If they're still
delivering IPv4 with IPv6-as-a-service, might as well keep using IPv4.
You're reliant on it anyway.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 6:01 AM Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> I don’t see why we don’t make it work for every IPV6AAS.  It’s just a
> DHCPv4 option. We could most probably extend 108 to support it with a list
> of methods in the payload after the wait timer. No list implies 464XLAT.
> The node would set its supported methods and the DHCP server would match
> against the methods it is configured for.  A registry of methods would be
> required.
> --
> Mark Andrews
>
> > On 21 Mar 2024, at 06:34, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 20-Mar-24 23:04, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> So ISPs have to back out DS-lite and deploy NAT64 just so people can
> deploy IPv6 mostly. We have provided a number of IPV4AAS mechanisms which
> all work at the node level as well as CPE level.  It should be possible to
> support any of them.
> >
> > Is anybody saying that IPv6-mostly is mandatory? I don't see why an ISP
> that currently runs DS-lite is forced to rip it out. DHCP 108 won't work,
> that's all.
> >
> >    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>