Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 24/09/2017 à 22:45, Lee Howard a écrit :
> Personal opinion...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:08 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Yet a common denominator among Current Practices of transitioninig
>> is: double stack.
>> 
>> A smartphone runs ok native IPv4 and native IPv6 simultaneously,
>> without needing translations nor encapsulations nor DNS v6-v4
>> mappings.
>> 
>> Is double stack BCP?
> 
> Dual stack doesn't solve the problem IPv6 was created to solve, which
> is the lack of available IPv4 addresses.

I agree.  However, during a transition time it is perfectly fine to use 
double stack (i.e. dual stack without tunnelling, nor translation nor IN 
A carried by IPv6 messages).

It may be a widely used method nobody talks about.

It may also be that we do speculate too much on IPv6-only cellular 
networks.  We speculate these are there now, whereas I may  speculate it 
may not really be the case.  There are some networks that are 
IPv6-only-to-end-user yet use GTP-IPv4.

In these networks, if there is GTP-IPv4, there could also be a DNSv4 and 
a NAT.

Actually, from where I look, I see many 'double stack' networks like these.

>> A few RFCs mentioning "dual stack" seem to be on StdsTrack (not
>> BCP). They seem all to involve some tunnelling or translation.
>> 
>> But double stack, understood as coexisting simultaneous use of IPv4
>> and IPv6 independently, on the same Computer, without tunnelling,
>> nor translation, nor DNSv46 - could very well be a BCP.
> 
> At best it could be a Brief Current Practice on the way to IPv6 only.

:-) I like that.

> In most cases there will be another step: IPv6 plus translation.

IPv6-IPv4 translations are evil.

> There's no single best way to manage IPv4 exhaustion. It's stinks,
> and is going to stink more.

:-) I can agree to that

Alex