Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Tue, 23 January 2018 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A3C12DA07 for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:14:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVQSfiGVf1qA for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2CD12DA05 for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:13:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1DF79B0; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:13:45 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1516698825; bh=CpP8ZbsVrC2oMP9mfFH7ixsBhMKLyYcKgPTyEzVtVhY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pr5lr/E2Rv7oZzVfMJ46IJb3s5SpdQKX1/ZLuGpB0+45jSKhNlc+WGjYOY8lanHWa xDYeGfR1g6z6bkjIswZ8oMr2BLdM0ANwk8uUtrg1G3uKvFJKWqAIB9+LrC4Ikj4M2t bU+AzV5LZtSYPEbglrsQjP2ucsNPvCzY8GECq4xo=
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1F29F; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:13:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:13:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: Lee Howard <>
cc: " WG" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-1423558373-1516698825=:8884"
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: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:14:09 -0000

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018, Lee Howard wrote:

> That’s a bit of a snarky question, but it’s a real one. Is there any
> real-world problem for which 6rd is the best answer?
> “I can’t update my network to support IPv6, but there are IPv6-only hosts
> that my users need to be able to reach” is the scenario 6rd addresses. Is
> that an actual case? The case “My ISP hasn’t updated to support IPv6, but
> there are IPv6-only hosts I need to reach” is solved with a tunnel broker.
> I don’t deny that it is deployed at scale. I’m asking whether there are
> any new deployments, recent or contemplated, and what path on a decision
> tree would lead one to decide “6rd.”

I know people who seriously are still considering this, because they're 
using old access tech which will never gain native IPv6 capability. So 
it's "6RD" or "no IPv6 at all for the lifetime of the platform".

Like "we have this ethernet-over-DSL DSLAM from 2006 that seems to still 
work, aggregates a bunch of customers, everybody is in the same VLAN, and 
the vendor has EOLed this platform in 2012, we're seeing declining 
customer base but it's non-zero, and we need IPv6 SAVI functions to deploy 
IPv6 securely". Or "we buy bitstream access over ethernet to a bunch of 
customers, but the bitstream access provider is IPv4 only because <reasons 
I just described earlier, and add 

I have talked to multiple people who have pretty compelling business 
reasons not to touch old access platforms, so it's 6RD or nothing. At 
least I haven't been able to come up with something better.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: