Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

After watching this debate, I'm asking myself why we want to anything
other than
a) watch the market deciding for itself, and
b) formally deprecate anything we decide is broken.

   Brian
On 23/01/2018 09:23, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jan 22, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> What's the purpose of what you are trying to do?
> 
> This started out as a question among the chairs, triggered in part by an academic article that I can't share because it's not public yet. It lists 26 different transition mechanisms and tries to make recommendations, based in large part of recommendations we have made. The question started out as "can we narrow that to one such mechanism? Which ones are actually in use?" Now see the spreadsheet Lee shared, which comes from different data.
> 
> It sounds like Ole's data on 6rd needs to get reflected in Lee's spreadsheet.
> 
> After quite a bit of discussion, we think we had pretty much re-invented RFC 6180. The discussion isn't over, but I suspect we're close. So Lee asked for opinions from you guys.
> 
> And BTW, I suspect that dslite is a little long in the tooth for the same reason. The theory with both 6rd and dslite was/is that once there is a native path from here to there, even if the dslite configuration is still in the network it's unlikely to be used. That might be naive :-)
> 
> The big question among the chairs is "what is the real case for translation?" We see it in a variety of places, basically creating a way for IPv6-only devices or networks to talk with IPv4-only devices or networks, but wondering if there is a better way to proceed. My personal take is "it is what it is, no worse than IPv4/IPv4 translation" - not arguing for it, but considering it a fact of life until people become motivated to replace it with native systems and connectivity. YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 