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

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 12:29 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> >> Isn’t it too early to state that it has lower operational cost than dual-stack (or IPv4 only)?
> >
> > It may be for people who haven't deployed it yet.
>
> Definitely. That was my point. It “may be”. We don’t quite know yet.

I do ;)

> >> It’s likely harder to troubleshoot IPv4 problems too.
> >
> > It's not my experience. Actually troubleshooting is much easier.
> > For IPv6-only devices it's just one protocol. For dual-stack devices
> > nothing has changed compared to a dual-stack setup.
>
> Cool! I would just imagine get a few issues with PMTUD discovery, traceroute not working and so on.

Those issues usually occur in IPv6-only networks as well.
I'd like to clarify: I'm comparing IPv6-mostly design (Option108 +
clat on hosts) with having a dedicated IPv6-only segment.
And most issues you mentioned exist in both.

> >> And I don’t think it even works on my DHCPv6 single address assigned network at all (yet to be tested).
> >
> > Nor would IPv6-only.
>
> Why not?

Because IPv6-mostly network is contains 3 types of hosts:
- IPv6-only
- dual-stack
- IPv4-only.

The last two would not run clat. IPv4-only applications on IPv6-only
hosts would have issues on both IPv6-mostly and IPv6-only networks, as
long as those networks do not provide a dedicated clat address.

> > When you made the decision to assign a single IPv6 address per device,
> > I assume you did evaluate pros and cons.
> > It doesn't make the  designs which are incompatible with your choice bad ones.
>
> IPv6 mostly in itself is not incompatible with a single IPv6 address.
> That’s an implementation choice.

CLAT requires a dedicated address, and it is documented in the
corresponding RFC.

> I haven’t had time to test implementations yet.
> Documentation isn’t exactly where Apple shines, but interesting to see where Microsoft lands on this one.

I believe Tommy already mentioned
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-link-v6ops-claton/

> >>
> >>> On 8 Mar 2024, at 04:52, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Great to hear! I think this means that all the major platforms will support the "IPv6-mostly" operational model that v6ops has been working on for the past few years. That's super important, because it means that any network can use this model with confidence that all their clients will work.
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully this will really help adoption of this model in enterprise networks. Dual-stack is expensive to operate, but if IPv6-only works, then any enterprise that wants to support IPv6 in some form can simply skip directly from IPv4-only to IPv6-mostly without having to worry about the costs of dual-stack at all.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 5:05 AM Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >>> Good day v6ops,
> >>>
> >>> As a general IPv6 FYI, I'll share Windows' announcement to bring CLAT to general networking interfaces which went live today: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/networking-blog/windows-11-plans-to-expand-clat-support/ba-p/4078173
> >>>
> >>> Looking forward to seeing everyone in Brisbane and talking about CLAT recommendations, the draft Jen and I are coauthoring, as Windows will be an implementor!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Tommy
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> v6ops mailing list
> >>> v6ops@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> v6ops mailing list
> >>> v6ops@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> v6ops@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Jen Linkova
>
>
>

-- 
Cheers, Jen Linkova