Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Wed, 22 April 2015 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2A21B3349 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] autolearn=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 4gYhq3MjkhVD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.sbone.de (bird.sbone.de [46.4.1.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4FD31B32C7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbone.de (mail.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E2E25D3A92 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:15:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC0DBC76FCF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:15:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sbone.de
Received: from mail.sbone.de ([IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) by content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pkARiLpv3xbS for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:15:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:4410:3d50:bfb0:aca:91] (unknown [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:4410:3d50:bfb0:aca:91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DD9FC76FD7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:15:55 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
In-Reply-To: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E8C63A@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:15:23 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67A2A6E4-0603-4E84-8534-EA6C706C6D5D@lists.zabbadoz.net>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTcKgK8W+VB1H5EQpHaYiKVYXqOz_2RS-w_CiTf9kL2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe530+OVZrFZVaYh1-zoRDvJhUd0rf4sx6a2nO8SvKmm6zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPi140PQ+TF0rED_bQPeS=Fj415qt0-zE2RdGnEL34PAzHyx6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjXAeMF6pw5MO2Jrf9B8LJ48D3m1YTVkdBe=_OHjtroQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51TCqU2eMP4LS3DooZxQDAPD95OVJDXbiU7qvuvKCMq+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2=zc57+pOA9TFs+0azw0ZR1g67+08T=9eZPHjGXBvgFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe53T_30pj7xxwNs=mWEnd=do6oiq3KgN=U-gHLrLF-gG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <D1441574.4C168%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGQrzoBJrqQfKO0N8Ji=oJ-ZP6Sn88sXf=opJ6bYVmTDZg@mail.gmail.com> <552102B0.6070904@cernet.edu.cn> <35D97B17-8E83-43CF-ABEF-122572F1321A@eircom.net> <552369C8.5000801@cernet.edu.cn> <CADhXe51BDuPhc8wdKGmRiBfSnrz7PMtqYXaoDO+5cwLx_xW2tw@mail.gmail.com> <55290E26.8080500@cernet.edu.cn> <CADhXe50zz9EtNtifMh+tN9XT-jKCTJB=vsQ6uG515iddOo7f2Q@mail.gmail.com> <5536776A.9060204@cernet.edu.cn> <C ADhXe52HpC1eGtnEw7+yWtOO2-ZEisGe_2Bz9Sz1=JHQQCPhEw@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E8C63A@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ikX_UAu4hwYZGng8Aykwuey-grY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 22 Apr 2015 09:16:02 -0000

> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:55 , Heatley, Nick <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> In the event that there is only one OS ecosystem at the party that doesn’t support the IPv4-socket transition, what story will they tell?

Given the entire “WinXP is still alive and IPv6 story” the timeframe to put to this is at least half a decade to a decade from now.

I think when people here mean “OS” they often think in “mobile OS” but don’t say?


> If browsers redirected these fails to a page that said “IPv4 literal problem encountered - ring vendor A” then that would be fine by me. A foolish idea? Well, it boils down to take some ownership, and don’t penalise operators taking the lead! IPv6-only transport has to be the target, we all know this.)

See, the thing I like about this thread is, that everybody is trying to point their fingers to someone else in order to fix something elsewhere but not with themselves or where the &^%$#$%^&*() problem occurs.   Anyone saying “you cannot get rid of IPv4 literals” to the extend that it doesn’t bother anyone anymore is mislead.  You just have not tried hard enough (probably because you are distracted seeking solutions elsewhere).

If everyone complaining here, would work towards getting rid of them rather than discussing who’s problem it is to put a workaround in place, we’d probably be half-way done.  We have people crawling the web, people having users and test networks, people who seem to be able to write enough emails on the topic that they could even direct it to the right people.

I could even be more adventurous and say:  give them a 90 day notice, publish it (that’s the important part, so that yur users hear about it as well), and if they don’t get back to you that they’ll fix it (timely) break them.  Isn’t that what people do with major security bugs?  I’d be surprised if major shopping sites and news papers wouldn’t react, once their sales and page views go down by a few % over night, but you need to let them and their users know upfront.

— 
Bjoern A. Zeeb                                  Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
"Friendship is one of the sweetest joys of life.  Many might have failed
 beneath the bitterness of their trial  had they not found a friend."