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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 08 March 2024 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 401EBC14F61A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:29:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 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, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=employees.org
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 8GLEYPf2QSXg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:6::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 2D31FC14F614 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 94458EAC76; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:29:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=B7CIgbTeL1pDJuRd 9RVS8PO7xAAUnsjFMViZgL3/U10=; b=TFKhSscEIRT6lIpJWABAenqwkYbKAgNf AoF9C4cSwVl0Z3zSwTGQESdT3FE0AO7WrNzxbfyBppgCUUqKTg1x1MjxMGWFLUXn 0z7f4QSx17lpgUa7Kvk80rugX+/DVWAkxZAbnr0e/Hpt9OpIKA2p74l1wnLpf/en kOWVrRVePs5Bo6fxW9zNOUEilmZGTcges8Bn5SN7EWhIb1sLF1ok168pRH+JRV5V uppc7o7bnzA7PdqOFjP+f+0uuR8WsM0QR0H/obN2rVBavRpndsHDWdMdtfDwWxKK gjhhgGcuqJ2yarJcvSBcR2qPmrEQ1Ofzh5OuEbJV5crnP9nndcY8OA==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 72FA7EAC6C; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:29:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ti0389q160-5480.bb.online.no [95.34.1.168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8ABA94E11ADD; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:29:32 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.400.31\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAQn-EgpL0mukUUnsBt916UA0P9Qw8KYtC5E5vG3ZMOW7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 14:29:19 +0100
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas@microsoft.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <10EF7C0B-0690-4AC0-BD7D-4DAB03C23E76@employees.org>
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>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.400.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/oYEOpfCfJEFeg-XAHJm6OPQHfjQ>
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: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 13:29:38 -0000

>> I’m also a fan of IPv6-mostly.
>> 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.

> 
>> What I mostly(sic) like about it, is that it provides a clearer path towards IPv6 only than dual stack.
>> 
>> But I would imagine at least for the short term there are going to be quite a few operational wrinkles to sort out.
> 
> When you find a new technology which doesn't have that problem, please
> let me know ;)

Of course not. It’s an interesting technology. My point was to not oversell it. It has the _potential_ to become a good option.


> 
>> 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.


> 
>> 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?


> 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. 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.

Best regards,
Ole


> 
>> 
>>> 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