IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?

Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> Sun, 05 December 2021 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
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 913313A148A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 06:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.852, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 51z6wRiBLISr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 06:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A9A63A1488 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 06:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id i6so7713617ila.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 06:01:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2epaDaezxQMXvJQq7LhFXfLkYUO5gnjmoGLNriIx734=; b=c0gjD6qQ3hr4tGsTf+XsqTKkuuiqFIeZUbVitZ6ui4p13+7tQpZLKwWBV5vzUF3sDM kRIlLQp/NW3bQU66wTa0mV7mH8pioPfzBfTHSwyORfknzTc2vHvNIdEEYC7G/tAgq+xh hqwncm9m+7LxKw2nkpx4WUD1o57TI53337KSqk242omJEqZuMzvyR+uF1rGW6pdPAzDc DGK0YT5QBoZVhnf8Ki9G0I+DJxD3n7bhpwi6p2C4LNOPi7XearQf+ZgDNg8H+s1ckrkR 1gYj6IWeQt4VDQRPVm0L00I5z4mXfvgPpGokOOkswuqTriH24SkHL3RBQgeTB/wqg565 ijyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2epaDaezxQMXvJQq7LhFXfLkYUO5gnjmoGLNriIx734=; b=38lMHyQft4YU8KxLBKV8gnqkXNIQZvcLnh4r5fqxNWvmmngTs/XHawFe2CIsZ0Zi2Q Xgqu5bdjS4zof0EIdHuiaGS7e8JPX9KvA4I2vBigI+90NI2eSc3UkKtFG1JRKsEHVxWF 26vwQ2BxpHtjTWsy5G4M5r1LS9aswNM1sFj+ehiZ3T5lVScKDHaHLjhf4Pk+JXe6xDxl 5LQ5Kumbd7ZplQ+kURtg55QFOgCRZE4PiB8QEKRovciStwb6ZLw9n/7g9g3ES+xOQTU9 uMg41pF6yv1QlEHZaiuFkUsqfCM9Xrwtfvj/TDslIsB/9IFTDDnmuKyy6LFt1K20oUY0 H5wA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kQSWDLzZy33R9LZarxb8AJcsY1cNKR9LENDjYYDwFLKPSIYcu 3ofUhgt4XTCXgygeqp/OgZUaqSn3e4doIA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlv0TsQPzR3W1g/PacwBhvAa6Wq1sMMO8zW2IeEouB4gVAigCTVFr98Esbwn6wovAM/EWVbg==
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cd8b:: with SMTP id r11mr26304246ilb.39.1638712885430; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 06:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.8.0.6] ([173.214.175.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h1sm5830360iow.31.2021.12.05.06.01.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Dec 2021 06:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f3e83e1d-0e88-ee99-72ba-898860523ad2@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 10:01:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0z-XckGv5L_9qu5w_6mU=O1h5nZWoTNw6GmStHQ8tzYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/s_cjyu_8gI5ePUuW1S6grsvmi5c>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Which IPv4aaS mechanisms should CE routers implement first?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 14:01:35 -0000

Hello,

   Maybe this is not exactly what you are looking for but probably is 
closed enough.

   Summary: in LACNIC for two years in a row we have been working in 
identifying which CPEs are the most common in the part of the world, and 
then looking for which transition mechanisms are supported by them.

   We have published two documents about it. Both can be found in here:

https://www.lacnic.net/5832/1/lacnic/

   The direct link for the latest one is here:

https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/4297/1/informe-cpes-ipv6-2020-v7.docx.pdf


    I know they are in Spanish :-(  sorry for this.

   Hope this helps to you and probably more people.


Alejandro,



On 23/11/21 10:25 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there any data on what IPv4aaS transition mechanisms are deployed 
> by ISPs today? I was approached by a router vendor asking me "how they 
> should provide IPv6-only" and I was looking for data on which 
> mechanisms are most common.
>
> Official IETF guidance in RFC 8585 and 8026 is "do all of them and let 
> ISPs decide, have a nice day", but that's not very helpful to a 
> development team with finite engineering resources and low margins. In 
> particular, it's not helpful to vendors of routers that are updatable 
> and that can thus credibly claim that they can deliver other 
> mechanisms via software update. Those vendors could reasonably argue 
> that it's better for everyone if they launch the most common 
> mechanism(s) first, and then deliver the others in software updates.
>
> It seems like reasonable implementation guidance would be to request 
> OPTION_S46_PRIORITY and parse it, but only initially implement one or 
> two of the mechanisms and leave the others for a future release. If a 
> router did this, what mechanisms should it implement first? MAP-E?
>
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email