Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Ole Troan <> Mon, 22 January 2018 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2D512700F for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:17:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fm102Qz6zuHj for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CE53126D45 for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A70292D51C4; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A038F2017E6C8A; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:17:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Ole Troan <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C950A053-44E0-4CE9-94BD-B653CEF85839"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:17:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Sander Steffann <>, " WG" <>
To: Fred Baker <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:54 -0000

> On 21 Jan 2018, at 20:28, Fred Baker <> wrote:
> Restated. Close?
>> On Jan 19, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Fred Baker <> wrote:
>> At least part of this commentary wound up in
>>    Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6
>>    Deployment. J. Arkko, F. Baker. May 2011. (Format: TXT=49679 bytes)
>>    (Status: INFORMATIONAL) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6180)
>> I think Jari's view in that was that we needed to rein in the plethora of transition technologies, and "if one has to translate, can we please do so above the IP layer?" I added SIIT/NAT64, because I think there is market relevance including several deployments of various kinds; any mention of MAP-T or 464XLAT is SIIT/NAT64. But the basic recommendation of RFC 6180 was:
>> - first choice, deploy native IPv6 - for scenarios in which IPv6 islands are connected across IPv4 space, use dslite (a tunneling design).
>> - for scenarios in which IPv4 islands are connected across IPv6 space, use dslite (a tunneling design).
>  - for scenarios in which IPv6 islands are connected across IPv4 space, use 6rd (a tunneling design).
>> - for scenarios in which IPv6 systems have to talk with IPv4 systems, translate. Please consider doing so above the IP layer.
>> I would argue that 464XLAT, MAP-E, and MAP-T are "services in which an ISP might use SIIT/NAT64 in its network", and are therefore not fundamental transition technologies as much as ISP services built using them.
>> I think I might also argue that the market has more or less followed that advice. Your spreadsheet seems to suggest that.
> The interesting thing is that 6rd, which is a way of appearing to have an IPv6 network without actually having one, is not what one might call "prevalent". It has in fact been used for *transition*, in places like Free - which used to connect IPv6 customers using 6rd and (I understand) has recently announced native IPv6 deployment. The places I know that have used it used it for a while and then have gone native.
> Would you agree with that?

No. There are active 6rd deployments with millions of users.
This email goes over 6rd.

What's the purpose of what you are trying to do?
Do you want to describe the world as you want it to be? Or as it is?
And for either case, see question 1.


> Side comment: I wrote the above and then read it back. The common meaning of the phrase "go native" is not what I meant (it's derogatory), but humorous in context.
>>> On Jan 19, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Lee Howard <> wrote:
>>> The WG Chairs were discussing the various transition technologies at some length today.
>>> I mentioned a previous conversation in another forum that led to this list of networks and their mechanisms:
>>> (Corrections and additions encouraged, especially with links)
>>> Our impression was that of the 26+ transition mechanisms defined, only a few have any modern relevance (editorial comments are mine, not consensus positions):
>>> 6rd.   It may be that its light is waning, with early deployments moving to native IPv6, and no new deployments.
>>> DS-Lite.   Widely deployed, existing support among home gateway manufacturers.
>>> NAT64/464xlat.   Implies NAT64, SIIT, which may be used elsewhere. Handset CLATs. No home gateway CLAT yet.
>>> MAP-T.   Announced trials and lots of buzz, but no large-scale deployments, no home gateway support yet.
>>> MAP-E.   Some buzz, no announced trials or deployments, no home gateway support yet.
>>> Native dual-stack.   Still the gold standard, but doesn’t solve IPv4 address shortage.
>>> (Note that “yet” may change at any time).
>>> As a matter of discussion, do you agree?
>>> To guide our work, is there work we should do to document or deprecate any of these?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list