IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Update of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and IPv4 exhaustion

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 23 February 2021 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@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 5E5343A27E2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:41:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 oZSS8rT4iDUq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:41:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (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 1C9863A0C74 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:41:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id ba1so9330572plb.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:41:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=prbiqw80XmDpf9HEqOydZH41UhJ5uvJ1I9DKTS8nm90=; b=ElUjvd8Ne2jzDjtOaEJrI40kjAEhEIphfeKxzr3Kfvek3upHzh+FjdjaxK1o6TElcK Yq3biT9E+0oJSvm6sEmdq+BVvIIAyuajA6B5C+YQBRtDUXXYUzVS6ul4kSOmS65rUK8Z CTNGbJvyevXmuzelDkFRPbM+fbL5DOSNzfFhQLBzKpDpszc1N1uW16JfZOoagmIJDevc VAyeFY8YeoOEhA7Y/28zXSRkY2ieA6GVvoBqqqVeTOopWO5g2yMmBb1UXLPgfKM/G+jz wjNohIBMZD5HbAySI1AeE+Kf90PcEpH+8gOxI+SNUQ7Cy6oPTY6tRFvxiarT795aKFzc t6kQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=prbiqw80XmDpf9HEqOydZH41UhJ5uvJ1I9DKTS8nm90=; b=UjObWyO3YhHvPGqUq5xIepnObfQ1ZcY9G8Mjk+uGLYrVfzrM94Jh3bfES4fV+J+NQg hOY5JWBMFOUS+KG7FyojWtOdH+88v03usDMpgiiDf5NiqKHTHzGMIjz5t4drTpjpo0WV KRLSq3x/YgtKq0SccfjsGtghGx5+9r8yb5sxM3T1lfei+YrMBFypqE11776BXhtOLPAX M923VQrnBfKi72u6rOpaLsZ3x0K1LFt+koRu9juz+akkc0fpzs9HJn4X9Va+7+iesAol dEeQxGScA7hQSiG3DaWLAG3mrcfPTkC72eJON1fXmGGScvUppoWJyT9OjttysSHMirtu zbdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533U3rW9zGqhRfCYg6M43esvvqcICxNR4Yq5xldjZBOhPTZkc42I dZ/xzhvXAu3ITAFjFKvB5Lo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyE4X4q6Damc+LTWcWw3TxoLzILv9POJnN15qEjeaL6KVzFtqywVt75mzR5pl5dIvNHhDKGgw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b688:b029:dc:240a:2bd7 with SMTP id c8-20020a170902b688b02900dc240a2bd7mr25728721pls.50.1614066076562; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:8802:5800:567::1004]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a23sm4571655pfl.29.2021.02.22.23.41.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:41:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <132F44E7-E5F5-42E4-93E7-EF6448CF3D61@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0136D1A1-A9CD-4F09-A251-B09777E08EA7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.32\))
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:41:10 -0800
In-Reply-To: <d5835971a5bb429abf8cf740a824e67d@huawei.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Sébastien Lourdez <sebastien.lourdez@post.lu>
To: Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato@huawei.com>
References: <d5835971a5bb429abf8cf740a824e67d@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/u4xItU-55tyR7NA8ONVnwNa9aLQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Update of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and IPv4 exhaustion
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: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:41:18 -0000


> On Feb 22, 2021, at 6:46 AM, Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> On the one hand this seems a good sign for IPv6 deployment. On the other, one may think that the IPv4 addresses are more than expected.
> This is a good point for discussion within the working group. Any opinion on this?

Well, one thing you might comment on - in the draft, perhaps, or at least this thread, is how this all relates to IPv4 address availability. A question recently raised on NANOG was "are there any RIRs from which one actually can't get IPv4 addresses at all?" It would be good to have a definitive answer.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email