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

["Heatley, Nick" <[e-mail]>]

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?
In that scenario, I don’t see there is a great customer story there (stuck running a legacy protocol as transport/being disconnected from literals).
Simply pointing at the other party guests and saying they should have done more to remove the problem in the first place isn’t going to cut it IMO, when there is a fix in their OS that they could work on.
From a smartphone/tablet perspective that is looking a likely scenario.

What I believe to be true for mobile: the disease is IPv4 literals, it cannot be eradicated, go immunise the OS.

(In the mobile consumer case, I don’t have an issue with IPv4-literals failing per se, I have an issue with IPv4-literals failing and customers thinking it is my network and ringing my helplines.
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.)


From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James Woodyatt
Sent: 21 April 2015 20:02
To: Xing Li
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Xing Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

(1) If the host system can not do RFC6145, the additional CPE is
required to do so, and that also keeps the IPv4 literals on the Internet
forever.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. I think what you mean to say is this: because support for IPv4 literals can never be removed from the Internet, hosts must either be provided with IPv4 service forever or all the hosts on the Internet must be upgraded to support the CLAT function in 464XLAT. My point is that you can't require all the hosts to be upgraded with CLAT functions any more than your require all the applications to stop using IPv4 literals everywhere. You are left with exactly one alternative: you must support IPv4 forever, and this is not because hosts don't have CLAT functions, but entirely because you cannot abide breaking any of the applications today that use IPv4 literals.

Shorter james: your problem is the IPv4 literals. If you can't ignore them, and you can't do anything else about them, then you can't deploy IPv6-only. It's really that simple.

(2) No ISP will deploy the IPv6-only network, if the end users cannot
access the websites with IPv4 literals.

I don't have a problem with that. I've been saying all along that ISPs should not be in any hurry to turn off IPv4 service to CPE devices completely.

--
james woodyatt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.  
 
We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. 

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.