Re: [v6ops] IPREF as a transitioning tool

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

Facebook has demonstrated the latter. Mobile carriers have not. I’m not making value judgments, merely pointing out that there are significant implementation and trade off differences between the two. 

It felt like you were holding mobile carriers up as an example of demonstrating IPv4AAS architecture on the server side.

Facebook is a relatively constrained example with a very large team to manage the implementation and work out the issues as they arise.

Not saying it can’t or won’t work, just saying it’s not as straightforward as we’d like it to be. 

Owen


> On Nov 12, 2023, at 10:10, Gert Doering <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 09:28:06AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> In fairness, what mobile operators have demonstrated is a relatively limited
>> set of clients being not significantly worse off with iPv6 only and an IPv4AAS
>> capability on the client side to reach IPv4-only services.
>> 
>> That???s not so much the case with IPv6-only on the server side and some form
>> of IPv4AAS to handle IPv4-only clients.
> 
> Not sure I understand.  Are you saying server side works better, or worse?
> 
> (Facebook has demonstrated the latter case)
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279