IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 AAFDB13527A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=google.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 ItZCMfdiDJiH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com (mail-yw0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (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 57D44135273 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id u205so128128ywa.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/k/3aadAV+vyJpmWg7lefqv/I+dzQxdzXsgDb0RBMfo=; b=H7FX2KWaezTg3gDrdncCzbrl/5Wxyn4P4UoD9HCN7XQ5/53EhaleqqLE7pGBiC6cY4 Jsc6FGuSsPtnM3bIcs7iB2NAnzh2sbeI2uQ/7lYzS/QgmiHWoPlfpvtsNB+jpcZblB4l F014PIh9Ql/1gjh3SaGIxEmd4QU1aLKURq4c1mR3v+hq4qwSb6LfiAp1Lscyc8VAXOUv gaGn6oVUd/z4nW9qiI7GzEj/3E7Xb/FlQhcOi8xr/Ox2PLvy9u8X1GKpnCIJPIREoFUv ND4dj8quUjDgNiqVLqiyW/DoFHgux+0DnAT6t0L7LKxPV6eim98K6r3l0zmdKOFwFWZF j1yg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/k/3aadAV+vyJpmWg7lefqv/I+dzQxdzXsgDb0RBMfo=; b=YJ2WAO9OZjSi0kI4VIWsh53sOC1HBTOQyVUTC3Ia0jsQ+XFealOxiFjCk8+b/K87JX YX33BunXL4iX03cncmrGB0ayPKjk3ilICtV9inmuEqkhqVZsTTNuvsam+AhNs5jmSYKc m/cqswRbJt+9U8DIgopm4vMByY9ZlY35f45/xgkuudbgBLSh/ylvqbqBIqRxXNkA/jGC JqusvGDYQtVPQWq9tN6bKOAdymy26551ISQO7xTHGvkzNbZpZd617YnmB79bppqyhAW8 qCrDafsu/AGq5l8vH7WyxLvWNQxE/cWlwE1Xtd1sUGKKKHS35/tF7l1E6VlqQGYJeEjy tGjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgZ12RU07e+jT5YXKOtM5rZQm2GvsSxzRsUq2yICRu+pOf+Zr9i Rny0iEgZB/f8xYYsRpz1UJ06dUJ1pTnbeDZOdwXLNA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QC4GBcZkF9aEqJXe+ahB/ij5nvWME1slctf0OwOBitUlKZGWNoCvdpcx5xxAcRnyQZFmV47UePuzfwTay6lCK0=
X-Received: by 10.129.116.69 with SMTP id p66mr2520072ywc.264.1506567485273; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.164.26 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1496304E-54BE-47FA-A7F1-1AA6E163DAB1@employees.org>
References: <LO1P123MB01168388285206BB7C26F029EA7A0@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <46045DAA-9096-43BA-A5FD-571232767726@google.com> <CAKD1Yr3vziaHfkR+hQ7QHXaz7QraKH2HLUVXUW63GpnOAj4JoQ@mail.gmail.com> <E72C3FBE-57A4-4058-B9E5-F7392C9E9101@google.com> <LO1P123MB0116805F9A18932E2D0694FEEA780@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1496304E-54BE-47FA-A7F1-1AA6E163DAB1@employees.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:57:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1CH-0+EZLEZvaRAgb8D71ezwvkqUsznsb3ywqO96yUKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: "Heatley, N, Nick, TQB R" <nick.heatley@bt.com>, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141aa08cac79b055a3713b3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jPR1DsRFtVE4UYbOCBJi2l2t0KQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 28 Sep 2017 02:58:07 -0000

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> 464XLAT or more commonly deployed 44464XLAT is the worst of any
> combination. It keeps sessions state both at the CE/CLAT and the BR/PLAT.
> Building scalable stateful devices is hard and expensive. And in the case
> of IPv4 sharing mechanisms unnecessary.
>

Many would feel that that's working as intended, and that the role of the
technology is *not* to deliver the highest-possible quality IPv4
experience. The role of the technology is to *unblock IPv6-only* by
providing  *compatibility mode* IPv4 service. In practice that turns out to
be a good incentive for app developers to upgrade to IPv6. That incentive
is not present in dual-stack networks.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email