Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Fred Baker <> Mon, 22 January 2018 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3494129BBF for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:23:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HUWkLucVXVtP for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63732127136 for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 136so7951058pgd.8 for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:23:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=QmlukejxyZLDL6oMgmvFTB0NDtmgZjpSFxX+jzrkcbY=; b=ZoD8nw3Bmyw/X9CMH6jwd9lIf/h3WENnDDJRTwcJ3d/79s2gtVcOePsGyPW/1dnsFI Dh3RMv6PzEd9qvkTApnIzI0D/uNGm/HYhgRqZtu20d1qWVX/vA671fxdwf2NOogcAUmh ciDgslilH9+kWW3B38NwYXxt/39KXrG/E4YLVec1otrE4pBNQ5GrUTCVp89l0LHAF1JY XQPRvlZ6s8tww9gLzE6qDV12YPdUNvXgSz1yXOoNrb0aazb4DQQUTzVfR9Vhx3EG5boE PPN/yA59fRKH7YE9VX0bi0kkC7f9A7Rs8s5YgwkxsXqdmVaciUujYUYCyZVVL6MdDc7e aA3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=QmlukejxyZLDL6oMgmvFTB0NDtmgZjpSFxX+jzrkcbY=; b=bM8b7GjcSjLDm/Tt8hFK910UhKBOIZS5jUyADiY87ehAgZG2fgOY4GVSitIn1xo8ii /0Vyot86ee+9fEOw/ZB6a+URqbdY28I9hIxScwroHJ49ElkBdSLPs3mOUvHJq9B5Ep5R sUxPYhrkvETG89g9h4YTuOcUALWXv7ERmnw+XwOfN4swA8UgGPubR8Zmoin5ksHnhzyP W6rlnZK6C0SP3swIxZj0Ge+rDSYoY0ddV4jL32BbJp8cksHZXyQ7xG1DoZQseAvVS1kT Imaarn/A4rq+VY/M5EKCSzPpOg3BS26CE/Zuz0zTy8Jnv1UQabeqvmLINEiho0uJHrPi lCcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfy834R6y+ygNjqgc3rzF7/nBlUqee+FnUOW9qeZuRflst3Xsav 6o4quUzMgAxGVR8mWVDWN3vBiBR5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227aQTI7AQlDyG0vOTpxJpom7tNzlaCg+oMo8/Ed5P3FCqJawFRk5fptN8Fhsx05vspmZd/GgQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m23mr9097044pfj.182.1516652595021; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g74sm1749090pfd.73.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:23:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F2C0B2AF-F2F1-4F57-834B-BDFAA828DE30"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:23:10 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Sander Steffann <>, " WG" <>
To: Ole Troan <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:23:17 -0000

On Jan 22, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Ole Troan <> wrote:
> What's the purpose of what you are trying to do?

This started out as a question among the chairs, triggered in part by an academic article that I can't share because it's not public yet. It lists 26 different transition mechanisms and tries to make recommendations, based in large part of recommendations we have made. The question started out as "can we narrow that to one such mechanism? Which ones are actually in use?" Now see the spreadsheet Lee shared, which comes from different data.

It sounds like Ole's data on 6rd needs to get reflected in Lee's spreadsheet.

After quite a bit of discussion, we think we had pretty much re-invented RFC 6180. The discussion isn't over, but I suspect we're close. So Lee asked for opinions from you guys.

And BTW, I suspect that dslite is a little long in the tooth for the same reason. The theory with both 6rd and dslite was/is that once there is a native path from here to there, even if the dslite configuration is still in the network it's unlikely to be used. That might be naive :-)

The big question among the chairs is "what is the real case for translation?" We see it in a variety of places, basically creating a way for IPv6-only devices or networks to talk with IPv4-only devices or networks, but wondering if there is a better way to proceed. My personal take is "it is what it is, no worse than IPv4/IPv4 translation" - not arguing for it, but considering it a fact of life until people become motivated to replace it with native systems and connectivity. YMMV.