IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Thu, 30 September 2021 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 CA9D93A0E14 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=space.net
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 S2fSZ9F2aHbA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper1-relay.space.net (gatekeeper1-relay.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:3:85::38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8233A0E13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=space.net; i=@space.net; q=dns/txt; s=esa; t=1633023929; x=1664559929; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=wPCqSTNGFw2Yf4dDWT+ufTbnM8TpDJKXQlNWSa/tsAs=; b=OyMw1DGnHr2J+DUJVr1oC8CXadrsndIC5bHyIta6GDfMA0An0/poWrfv znGrMG8kyQA2wMA9vMVe4YeOBa/uxLA9egMz4BCWvj7EF2qCnkGizweSY BkJww0Ht016l2MqfPEBz4F5ojdLWGsWp4nsjxk2wlRDnEhFMoVfKw/dpA 86S+yt6SaDoeRO8PxFE4FwkXCeXMzoVBuqHfCIeGtG6Wk4oJG+8l/UI4h aF3VYfpk7a1VV7TDFf64DgneDMI/DUH8Z0adZf+tYyoF4ECuAffzUBEau pJtV/707vqtl8h1fL7nyKkpJtCpcDFd/2PTYqy3KlLpzDxYfVmDfLTUtZ Q==;
X-SpaceNet-SBRS: None
Received: from mobil.space.net ([195.30.115.67]) by gatekeeper1-relay.space.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Sep 2021 19:45:27 +0200
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE2842471 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:45:26 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECC44245E; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:45:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 488D311C7BC; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:45:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:45:26 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YVX3tr1yYQMA/MtO@Space.Net>
References: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <46b0b83a-b6cf-f9f2-4686-a6ff695c5d6f@hit.bme.hu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/iZ15Pg38XnyFvPWFyoFDUOpD4hE>
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 17:45:33 -0000

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 07:32:47PM +0200, Gábor LENCSE wrote:
> 9/30/2021 7:10 PM keltezéssel, Gert Doering írta:
> > 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.

That's not "ipv6-only" in an interesting way, no more than "a BGP-free
MPLS core" is relevant for users of said network.  For all I care the
network could be a any-to-any switched ATM network with no IP at all... :-)

ipv6-only on one endpoint of the connection, this is the interesting part,
with translation (NAT64 or NAT46) if having to communicate with an ipv4-only
endpoint.  Like, facebook datacenters, or t-mobile handsets.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email