Re: [v6ops] Thinking about problems in IPv6-only networks

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Sat, 18 August 2018 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
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 3A5DA130E8A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 08:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ILlWEYKgS9Hh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc35.google.com (mail-yw1-xc35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E4F8130E62 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc35.google.com with SMTP id q129-v6so5433193ywg.8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8wm/DcD+9//LhbIlM50k1KPNOziVpOPaQp/uwYS5dZI=; b=uIbwaSOj/jHwG8vh5j+cn+I0Q8iMKmcTGz9CuXjhCChP7A+8mp6t7LP7RVNsJ3Tiot +5bjVZJePVq5OUDQgSoOWN5D9m+5BKSW1Gbgr0+WlTqyLtKNw1hwDaISCqls9lgwQr8X VHEpo8NkTjmbvW0Sko7ITYH59gEbudeHf7TLikB0lgn8t2Nmi9a76sDBweCFCW746UjG a5GaGuphKX83n1MEwNmzf7nCgUZIzH3clquty1cfIPQ+ljMqLjp7XcMaeuqkxgLEMpO2 T8/QcsKKNYyTkOhPkI+JM3zEAKGluZF0GZccMnMy8Af+Oeg44MOQwETj+8gGkafZ20x8 vvFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8wm/DcD+9//LhbIlM50k1KPNOziVpOPaQp/uwYS5dZI=; b=KjNM0jcZzBIPlLRETbQJWIZxsXXdEYcjg2CcJZqKe7pj5E2PfrCtA2sLHxMyxYH+IT hvIKy9g9deI8zM1+lG6TcgwhaOvn/mNkZUEdPS7a0FOc1aY2vQgKF0CaHjkXkSwmkSGW 9MeMaP4Ew45CA8qoBZ/yPHkPkjwVlbiirpD+XlTsVG6L4TNr8JUDPNImeCHRWYiJ4+Qc 2BnLKQmJc7UAOm0yYGen93vYd9gEMU/FPmbkix2v536g5iaYG9kbWKU/9vryaXE3vS7q 100UDR3cZy7X0lbyn0EQnRVZDha+9Dz/1ctFuEjvByNQoTdugnvXO7SI72yCmuWDXPk8 x6sA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlF2p3U7TxI+9Gb2l0EY61bSoKhZb0HNFfbX03uJ6LxD827/WJdz 280OK2PFBwUevmwNJSCyZrz2GWd3yENb4D61+E29Pg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwmhEkXOTUuUdkcTzo/FxSO0COEYa8f1s/khljZZ5IDGfvmmUZu3GZ7rG0KkqShc7CVlC2GOsUcyM15MvPPIGQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:7050:: with SMTP id l77-v6mr22212402ywc.226.1534605511819; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9B8DB67F-DF22-4E5D-8EC5-90E79E3C86A2@gmail.com> <33af3d07-c1be-783a-e7a7-d1674c46b51d@asgard.org>
In-Reply-To: <33af3d07-c1be-783a-e7a7-d1674c46b51d@asgard.org>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 08:18:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQ_OBFGJb_C+mP_87nu7q_oXPrTvxhaV_=RcubeHtMy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006706620573b730fd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gLMRoCNWyaL2CW0o6DoF_1rjrIs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thinking about problems in IPv6-only networks
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 15:18:34 -0000

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:24 AM Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> wrote:

> Problems I've encountered (off the top of my head):
>
>    - Documentation assumes/uses IPv4
>    - Listeners only configured for IPv4
>    - Software repos that are IPv4-only
>    - CA/CRL/OCSP that are IPv4-only
>    - VPN software that is unaware of IPv6, so client is split tunnel when
>    on a dual-stack network
>    - No IPv6 support in openssl (is there a better troubleshooting tool I
>    should use?)
>    - Mail is still a mess
>    - Bugs in home gateways
>    - Chicken-and-egg provisioning/OSS need to run IPv6, but routers and
>    firewalls have to run IPv6 to get to them.
>
>
Sounds challenging.  Twitter also does not work on ipv6-only.

In my world, ipv6-only Android and iOS have been relatively painless and
certainly achievable, and this experience has been repeated in other
networks too. Rogers in Canada recently moved to ipv6-only iOS

Going back to Jordi’s point, what does ipv6-only mean?  Certainly Android
and iOS have integrations with NAT64 that makes them work well on an
ipv6-only access network.  I once read Windows 10 has CLAT client, but i
have never used it myself.

So, maybe the draft needs to outline the obvious. Ipv6-only networks that
want to provide consumer internet service need an integration point such as
a B4 or a CLAT, which have both been deployed at scale for years, and thus
have a body of knowlege to justify a bcp. Second, perhaps a seperate draft,
outlines a catalog of services that require a B4 or CLAT and how to
minimize their use.  For me, i would be interested in hearing how the
ipv6-only enterprise networks that have been trumpeted at FB, Cisco and
Comcast are doing.

We should avoid the fruitless dicsussion of how many ipv6 angels can dance
on the head of an ipv4 pin.



>    -
>
> I've made it through most router configuration (I always have to tell
> engineers that router-id is an integer not an IPv4 address; it sure looks
> like an address; oh, and it has to be manually configured in an IPv6-only
> network).
>
> That's all very operational; is that the sort of stuff you're thinking? If
> so, I'll go ahead and start a draft and see who else wants to contribute.
> Most of it is temporary (I hope) or related to other people not deploying,
> so I 'm not sure whether this is what you have in mind.
>
> Lee
>
>
> On 08/17/2018 02:06 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> Ron and I just had our bi-weekly phone call, and identified a topic that might be interesting and useful. We'd like to invite a draft from people that are deploying IPv6-only networks or parts of networks identifying the problems they are experiencing that the IETF might be in a position to address. The objective, as always, is to solve problems preventing such a deployment in time for vendors and open source to provide solutions.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Victorious warriors win first and then go to war,
> Defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
>      Sun Tzu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing listv6ops@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>