IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 22 January 2018 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 BD1A212AF6E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:07:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 cZUgWTGOf_Le for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDAE127136 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789474A; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:07:42 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1516651658; bh=qDTS4qxyzYO8Ba7Ve1p6jJVLBJ4MjCpdOnycEiUf4nA=; b=N 23+v7OsDOJaGW2exQ9s6a3z18joLwFu7LsxM7n4UIWzuk8MjgFMqPwz0XyhyLRH7 RsCh/9NqHNyjGG+naBA7SXm9wmNxjdsKKVoICUQ7orov8mQ8il1sD0xtMLkMjfWO Y76qAFDhrLfVkBmnkfJYySI9bTft6p6ifEVSUuq+s4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id fBfb0RPMkbb9; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:07:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:11ea:361:90e3:7d1] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:11ea:361:90e3:7d1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 834F249; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:07:37 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <D68BA9E1.96407%lee@asgard.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:07:35 +0100
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F03B3852-F75D-41B9-82BB-9CDABE9AAD0F@steffann.nl>
References: <D687BC24.92CC1%lee@asgard.org> <A6995969-0C03-4261-92F4-331206825130@gmail.com> <D29099E6-510D-41DA-B998-6BF15E9FDE7F@gmail.com> <D68B9BCE.96312%lee@asgard.org> <A5D8E026-ADB1-487C-AC20-30CA478A7B89@employees.org> <D68BA9E1.96407%lee@asgard.org>
To: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/uWoVJpVRT1keKNXpZN3-Q53xkU0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:07:48 -0000

Hi,

> 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?

The deployments that I worked on used 6rd because the L2 infrastructure couldn't do first-hop security for IPv6. No DHCPv6-PD snooping, no source guard etc. They refused to deploy IPv6 in a much less secure way than they deployed IPv4. And of course the switches either couldn't be software upgraded or would require newer supervisors to support the features they needed. Part of that has solved itself over the years with forklift upgrades, but not everywhere. So they couldn't do native IPv6, but still wanted to provide IPv6 service to their users: hence 6rd.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email