IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 25 September 2017 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 5F721133020 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 01:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5NpGNi2umcLq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 01:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89FFC13300C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 01:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id A1073B1; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:28:33 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1506328113; bh=NKxqxEY+fjobiBcfU/P7Ir9K5jPuj1Nz7DBOF15SChM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RoXcEDG96d1lpo34U8Zpw28cfN3q833OmVWw+g2/Cr3secOfDE6z8ALf1ixVBeFcI BTpZoDXB1SiPsUl99s3ADjb++9bf9jNuVEgUnoUXTYoVnc/QRGQO7mAZGUKiaBhM3A elWu7n5vcFCi/WM4iGD670XpBsNjvCb9ZAxKzH5E=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CF2B0; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:28:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:28:33 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
cc: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>, v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <e38bb7d2-1376-e790-8c20-19d54ec6b163@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709251025270.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <D5E8043B.86B21%lee@asgard.org> <E48DDA04-C058-4992-906E-8C8BC0E102AB@consulintel.es> <1BFA3605-4B16-4331-A7BA-3BDECBCA64EC@gmail.com> <85868796-18C7-48F4-BE69-8D50A1F47EF3@jisc.ac.uk> <472CC0F7-73C2-4A21-8F96-BBC966B01B77@employees.org> <de6b9aac-a3cc-0915-77c7-9fb880c3a16a@gmail.com> <20170921223305.B72A8878E716@rock.dv.isc.org> <122454EE-64C5-4768-A6A9-1AD0E872F5F9@employees.org> <2a879713-bfd0-2ba0-cb67-53726f6e1faf@gmail.com> <41c808ef-b2c0-6e74-e61d-e89fcebe5e0a@gmail.com> <FA8911A1-CE3E-40E2-A11F-12303A3B4D1C@asgard.org> <e38bb7d2-1376-e790-8c20-19d54ec6b163@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pULHWSoPJVmvCyqSxJ_MVxxUlz8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 25 Sep 2017 08:28:38 -0000

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> It may also be that we do speculate too much on IPv6-only cellular 
> networks.  We speculate these are there now, whereas I may speculate it 
> may not really be the case.  There are some networks that are 
> IPv6-only-to-end-user yet use GTP-IPv4.

Are you saying that people from for instance T-Mobile USA saying they're 
doing IPv6 only GTP (and checking peoples phones the settings are IPv6 and 
not IPv4v6), are lying?

What do you mean by GTP-IPV4? We're talking about what access service is 
provided to the customers, and there are several that do IPv6 only GTP. 
Yes, the GTP packets might be carried over IPv4, but the SERVICE provided 
to the customer is IPv6 only.

> Actually, from where I look, I see many 'double stack' networks like 
> these.

There are plenty of examples of IPv4 only, IPv6 only, and IPv4v6 mobile 
access networks. It's all being done. What the provider chooses to do 
often has to do with their equipment vendor supports and how many IPv4 
addresses they might have. Also operational practices and preferences.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email