Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

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 
bitstream-provider-doesn't-see-business-need-to-deply-Ipv6>."

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: [e-mail]