IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Mon, 11 March 2024 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 13F46C14F699 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6gW4LcwwG7C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1134.google.com (mail-yw1-x1134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E116C14F618 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1134.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-609fc742044so39912527b3.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1710172310; x=1710777110; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=qj0T+sWUwigJKjccXkzSpin/612WWD9gdERqhYt57N0=; b=MWprhw89Qgbp6yASYVy7VG6u3FA5SeZ78Gr3Na9zE06CS5/KYBELpQlgRA4d2ncerW mm0rYYaIuasBdpJrJd3umU1rRlUY/pBy5IlsRWDSk0rDNs4EV9aAILqVHjaR1jaklfsz jVSLWQ3pdLqm99MJy/BD0SZWS22uloi3dUMt6MzUaYtEqeDioCP3Q3xME+ipBQmVeaSm 61ESstSFFEtDeZzvQtAV7wAqE56gaEsOz+bQoCMniKySq/BaHhKkUoTPRQNbNZCrleHQ 9A+6Kz+z564D4IUi7NrnJ2wWxV1osOFn/cU9pJzcYAnyISo+Nw9yCBVJwhxXVJ75ki2n hNxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710172310; x=1710777110; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qj0T+sWUwigJKjccXkzSpin/612WWD9gdERqhYt57N0=; b=A5j3KmZ0ntbHA6FsHpKvYV8fYAwgoVWWoodcf/cCEfPOLQw0W8fJY6eGFbNWk2rXCy iv2zKunfvltNReVqM2JUZt5VQu65g2G/5MG0IeY+iMn+8w44w8cas6y82uM81xCzbLHf 51GSSGDABnVWbAZsX/qEQGEwrZ/4FQVfOWRU6F5BxKggikUQ69xUAtHmeIhPxIuv2f9m ECaUztsyWmOsPK3N1/1tAbTmVirHT9Mybl8rNNPr4Z50lRI2eQ03aI4nEb9s7qOwwFRD paxfEjQQtlJ19bbJ1430UxPKqOF3iZgACzT0bSnLIHWYR8T8AB6gvlhe1yOCwZKoel0t pCpQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWySv44EP/TfE0ugF1vljqSjzSH+tE4rnAlmo2N4SNZ8fNSrPC0ctG1NRMNCExQVQ/ahs8TeRHn1Klq7dYkBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx/5JlpneZuHwo/qfVlWsAUe/DnSMh/Nk972VbE179YR3U6B4dC 6c5LOib1+yMS5UnZRbQziqOD2HRalrAyQh+ohOvEPIIiCvh2ctyk
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEpELIbueQD7C90WhmjwOrgWzlF2q3EepEiL13KCnm5FI5S2MU28hytiBGCshnenHMpB6X4Mw==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:df15:0:b0:dc7:4860:1214 with SMTP id w21-20020a25df15000000b00dc748601214mr5590975ybg.4.1710172309817; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (99-31-208-116.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [99.31.208.116]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v38-20020a25fc26000000b00dccdf447047sm1226950ybd.65.2024.03.11.08.51.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BATgS7qeWC+0=rMSpYPXEi735MqQZL3zgFirdhjyt7NzWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:51:28 -0700
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas@microsoft.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6BE56476-46BF-4786-8A23-F640BBA5D2F5@gmail.com>
References: <SJ0PR00MB1348781EB81293E8A0521F23FA202@SJ0PR00MB1348.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr1GgOBR+Y5x4-+BCzQFp3usPwd_CM05nfwgM6pT5wef1Q@mail.gmail.com> <884F5E11-364C-4D42-B199-B8FEF33C59C4@employees.org> <CAFU7BAQn-EgpL0mukUUnsBt916UA0P9Qw8KYtC5E5vG3ZMOW7w@mail.gmail.com> <10EF7C0B-0690-4AC0-BD7D-4DAB03C23E76@employees.org> <b03cd464974b4f2cb9319ee8eff71914@huawei.com> <CAFU7BATgS7qeWC+0=rMSpYPXEi735MqQZL3zgFirdhjyt7NzWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/m7jrSQf-bZfE9Uoykq8h-_2WgrE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:51:52 -0000

Jen,

> On Mar 11, 2024, at 4:45 AM, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:49 PM Vasilenko Eduard
> <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
>> IMHO: IPv6-mostly would not be enough incentive to improve Enterprise miserable IPv6 adoption.
> 
> Indeed it would not. IPv6-mostly deployment model is not an incentive.
> It's a mechanism to reach a goal. That goal needs to exist first.
> Most enterprise networks are not going to deploy until they run out of IPv4.
> Some of them might not reach that phase in any foreseeable future. To
> be honest, I do not think it's a problem.
> When those networks face IPv4 exhaustion, the reasons for delaying
> IPv6 adoption magically fade into insignificance, but not until then.

I agree, and would add that IMHO enterprises who are fine with 1918 addresses, won’t transition to IPv6 [Only/Mostly] until it can be shown it will same them enough money to justify the transition cost.

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email