IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6 mostly for DS-Lite

Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Thu, 21 March 2024 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 B669CC1D4A6B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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
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 bbaLIQvhVh2x for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (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 CDB1CC1CAF4C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.105] (host-79-121-41-59.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.59]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 42LJSAl3036514 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:28:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-41-59.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.59] claimed to be [192.168.0.105]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CMtKqB3RWKWN0XZfFfPDxn4A"
Message-ID: <33d056f5-4a82-40d1-a1cf-14062897f5a4@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:28:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <453A0844-6811-4F6C-BD93-B314B694AF87@isc.org> <CA+E65xSh0KEdiLDtfjc16+153Q3V_CsABdohrXHJ+cOhjd_Mow@mail.gmail.com> <63a002b6-e3e8-4846-a0bf-2792b04eff56@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <63a002b6-e3e8-4846-a0bf-2792b04eff56@gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.11 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.41.59; helo=[192.168.0.105]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.11;
X-DCC-www.nova53.net-Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pgBV_SUoZOTjuQoZnDqjajkkhsQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 mostly for DS-Lite
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:28:28 -0000

> Hmm. I don't think the world needs Betamax or Blu-Ray. I really think 
> the picture is too confused and this actively damages IPv6 adoption, 
> so please pick one, and the market seems to have picked 464XLAT.
> (It wouldn't have been my preferred choice either. The dogs bark, but 
> the caravan moves on.)

However, the PLAT of 464XLAT is a stateful NAT64 gateway. It has very 
serious scalability problems.

I have presented our scalability comparison of the Jool implementation 
of 464XLAT and MAP-T at the v6ops meeting at IETF 118 in Prague.

Now we have much better results (measured in RFC 8219 compliant way) in 
our latest (open access) paper:

G. Lencse, and Á. Bazsó, "Benchmarking methodology for IPv4aaS 
technologies: Comparison of the scalability of the Jool implementation 
of 464XLAT and MAP-T", /Computer Communications/, vol. 219, April 2024, 
Pages 243-258, DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2024.03.007
Full paper in PDF 
<http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECC-2024-IPv4aaS-published.pdf>

Best regards,

Gábor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email