Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

 From my humble experience of following IPv6 cellular deployments, I
noticed that once 464XLAT got proposed DHCPv6 service was removed.  It
was suggested that that was the 'standard' (464XLAT) and that everyone
would do it.

I am not able to explain the relationship 464XLAT-yes / DHCPv6-no,
unless I make some speculations.

To avoid me speculating, I would like to ask you: do you think there is
any relationship between the two?  Do you think DHCPv6 is still
necessary when 464XLAT runs?  Do you think 464XLAT hampers somehow the
deployment of DHCPv6 (just like 64share does with DHCPv6-PD)?

I would like to say that if you consider 464XLAT to
be a good Android technology on good cellular networks - I agree with
you.  Just I doubt about the StdsTrack.

Alex

PS: if you have time:
 From the software side, I can say that some non-Android IoT device
connects ok to IPv6 cellular network and does not use 464XLAT.  It does
not need IPv4 connectivity to the IPv4 Internet.

I wonder whether the client-side 464XLAT implementation is open-source?
  Is it a kernel module or userspace?  Is there an option "464XLAT
support" in the kernel?  Or maybe there is no client-side 464XLAT (and
all happens in the network)?  Or maybe it is a binary in the modem that
implements 464xlat, and not the open-source in the linux.



Le 19/09/2017 à 14:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> RFC6877 (464XLAT) is an informational document.
> 
> However, this transition mechanism is the one that has a bigger 
> deployment in terms of number of subscribers using it (hundreds of 
> millions), which I think is even more than ALL the other transition 
> mechanism together.
> 
> Doesn’t make any sense, in my opinion to keep it as an informational 
> document, while we have many others that are standards track and 
> don’t have such level of deployment.
> 
> I was commenting this last week with a couple of the co-authors of 
> this document, and they have the same opinion.
> 
> So, should we aim to do this?
> 
> Can we even consider moving it to STD?
> 
> Regards, Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you 
> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>