IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCEE1B2B8A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 f4z2L5Cm2VP3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671291B2B86 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1887; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427848384; x=1429057984; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=p32dymR9ydGjFg/j9cpBp5ubH3dbSnsJvNLqoDiJpRc=; b=XdD/ANFnbVzyvElkdrTeaII7LZyp+OwrcbC0TRenYKHo95KDPsv2VxxF Ww98VtqSV+qg5UbRpuELP6QkH1vs8mpzJ9u+QFhuBKP8s9QwqayZUQDIc KIFUB18oq6eTMSmIxhR0Y+Jn05jTVGZaWp9DHZKSf3V3WHuY0pEMePz3S A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ARBQCAPBtV/49dJa1cgwaBLgWDD8hlAoE6TAEBAQEBAX2EFAEBAQMBI0QSBQsCAQgYKgICIRElAgQOBQ6IDQMJCLR0k0oNhVABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXiymCR4IxB4JoL4EWBZBigWyBMoUKgU2OEIYrIoNubwGBQ38BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,503,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="137166464"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2015 00:32:50 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t310Wo7U020853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 00:32:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.67]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:32:49 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory
Thread-Index: AQHQbBNhG5JVINnTs0uV0Ah8LpbStw==
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:32:48 +0000
Message-ID: <B0D588CB-0448-44FE-BE3F-4D0B890B5756@cisco.com>
References: <D1401A6F.90498%Lee@asgard.org> <551AF135.3060602@gmail.com> <B7AD5376-A2CF-43DF-9A84-B75CFDDBD6FF@cisco.com> <551B37B9.4090400@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <551B37B9.4090400@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_30F9BD19-5BED-4D7F-8D64-452522CB3162"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/qtLqe8RAS7ChKMd3X5tEpHoeKZA>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:33:05 -0000

> On Mar 31, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 5. Therefore, migrate IPv4 support to run over IPv6.

Again, if you want the carrier’s logic, ask the carrier. But to me, that doesn’t follow.

Not all core carriers, but a significant number of them, don’t think of themselves as carrying IPv4 or IPv6 per se. They think of themselves as MPLS houses, using jumboframes so that the addition of that header to whatever their payload happens to be (aka IPv4 or IPv6) doesn’t have an MTU problem. Whatever comes in, they throw it into the right tunnel (aka LSP) to get it to the right egress, MPLS gets it there, and it goes out the other door.

You’re arguing about what kind of tunnel they should use. They’re quite happy with the one they have, and it’s neither IPv4 nor IPv6.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email