Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

Tom Perrine <> Thu, 08 August 2013 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D57811E8236 for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZCUUkSctf6aa for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4786311E822E for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,841,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="1648807"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2013 14:43:32 -0700
Received: from sd-tperrine-mpl.local (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79CFB8114 for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:43:32 -0700
From: Tom Perrine <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20130808170533.GI65295@Space.Net> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 21:43:40 -0000

On 8/8/13 1:40 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
> Actually I think your reasoning and reference to the IPX and Appletalk
> phase out would suggest it's easier to make a bold call: move to IPv6
> ASAP for critical systems via dual stack, and for the rest you draw a
> box around it and call it legacy and run it on IPv4 until it dies a
> natural death.
> IMHO Going half way with NAT64/DNS64 just prolongs the pain and locks
> you into a transition technology that is expensive and difficult to
> operate for the life cycle of that box, and which has to remain in place
> until the last app is migrated or switched off.
> I've been in a fair number projects where you sometimes just have to
> dare to cut the cord whilst maintaining a process to find out what has
> broken. So one valid IPv6 only migration strategy might be: "If it's
> important, they'll migrate before a flag day date. Otherwise they get
> cut off."

I cannot agree enough with the "prolongs the pain" observation.

I'm planning to have no transition technologies in our internal (corporate) network. "Dual-stack or death!"

If something can't be dual-stacked, it goes into the legacy pit of doom and dies a slow painful death.

Consumer-facing is different, but I'm still expecting no transition technologies to be needed.

This is rather cold-blooded and (I freely admit) a bit of a pipe dream. But if I can make this work, I'll never have to
justify, pay for, create, debug, support, and then decommission any of the transition technologies.