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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Wed, 24 November 2021 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1962b87949=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 EA4D13A0C47 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:38:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es
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 oueleMBexCYg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DB63A0C4B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:38:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1637739482; x=1638344282; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type; bh=W5iNSzaHRbcUKaMJNZ/FzFM56K48hNTSck IxB+AHXsU=; b=Illfx/LSyM2egsT01X1LkvMJROBlTkzpHXLA7efZLmyqJfGSsd hsFAcKSOC6Wff4N6ygJGGfpF7J3W7UGwFcSDpFujsV2M4glNwZJRZXzp8pku30lj EssRti2Qi1sqWgcimRmtpNunvkRfrPTNyA1Ri0rowqcDRwwD1HgJhZfdU=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:38:02 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:38:00 +0100
Received: from [10.10.10.145] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000755352.msg for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:37:59 +0100
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:54a:7776:d74f:7152
X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.145]
X-MDArrival-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:37:59 +0100
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Return-Path: prvs=1962b87949=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.55.21111400
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:37:56 +0100
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <06846DB4-C6EB-420A-8CD9-7D66D406C715@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?
References: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3720587876_806627359"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/i3TmlxMCaVM1Zs1V5MgD3vz8xro>
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 07:38:14 -0000

If you count cellular, clearly the winner is 464XLAT (there are several ISPs that offer mobile broadband), in terms of number of subscribers using it vs all the other transition technologies added together.

 

Otherwise, DS-Lite is probably the one that has been implemented mostly because the other ones didn’t exist at that time. I’m not seeing a big penetration of MAP-T/E neither lw4o6.

 

Also take a look at:

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison/

 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 24/11/21 3:26, "v6ops en nombre de Lorenzo Colitti" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> escribió:

 

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

_______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org 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.