IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?

Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato@huawei.com> Wed, 24 November 2021 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paolo.volpato@huawei.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 53AF73A0D6A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 03:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 d2W8cksZX1UG for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 03:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DA513A0744 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 03:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml737-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HzdL81V0wz67bjw; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 18:59:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.221) by fraeml737-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:03:05 +0100
Received: from fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.221]) by fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.221]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.020; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:03:05 +0100
From: Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato@huawei.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?
Thread-Index: AQHX4Nq4ZOeQUiIBFUaTceUFP/KkgqwSfkLQ
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:03:05 +0000
Message-ID: <83fa0355962947a981a9f0ee2d7c0c4f@huawei.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.87.248]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_83fa0355962947a981a9f0ee2d7c0c4fhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gsOC9WNV38k_hKhuCa0JOjfqIHo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?
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: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:03:13 -0000

Hi Lorenzo,

In addition to what others have already shared, you may want to take a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment/.
We shared some statistics about the adoption of transition technologies in wireless and wireline networks.
For the former, it has been already shared that 464XLAT is the mechanism commonly adopted.
In wireline, DS-Lite is preferred, with a few operators using other technologies such as 6rd or others.

Best regards
Paolo


From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 3:26 AM
To: v6ops@ietf.org WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?

Hi all,

Is there any data on what IPv4aaS transition mechanisms are deployed by ISPs today? I was approached by a router vendor asking me "how they should provide IPv6-only" and I was looking for data on which mechanisms are most common.

Official IETF guidance in RFC 8585 and 8026 is "do all of them and let ISPs decide, have a nice day", but that's not very helpful to a development team with finite engineering resources and low margins. In particular, it's not helpful to vendors of routers that are updatable and that can thus credibly claim that they can deliver other mechanisms via software update. Those vendors could reasonably argue that it's better for everyone if they launch the most common mechanism(s) first, and then deliver the others in software updates.

It seems like reasonable implementation guidance would be to request OPTION_S46_PRIORITY and parse it, but only initially implement one or two of the mechanisms and leave the others for a future release. If a router did this, what mechanisms should it implement first? MAP-E?

Cheers,
Lorenzo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email