Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 05/08/2014 15:09, Ca By wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2014 1:26 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>>> My point in bringing this up is not that it is “useful in an IPv6
> network” that might also be running IPv4 in parallel. It is that it seems
> useful to me in moving toward and IPv6-*only* network. Ross suggests that
> he sees conceptual movement - First they ignore you, then they laugh at
> you, then they fight you, and then you win. We may, Ross suggests, be
> approaching stage 4. It may be useful for us as a working group to lay out
> the game plan for that movement - not just to document IPv6 operational
> practice, but to help the IETF determine whether the dual stack consensus
> has changed or is changing, and help operators figure out how to turn IPv4
> off without individually shooting their toes off. This would be part of
> that game plan.
>> Well, I think the operators that moved early into genuine dual
>> stack operation have no reason to regret it. I'm a happy customer
>> of one such. On the other hand it seems that other operators are of
>> the opinion (probably unprovable) that providing the illusion of dual
>> stack service to the customer over an IPv6 infrastructure is cheaper.
>> In any case the customer ends up with NATted IPv4 service in most
>> cases, so at user level it doesn't really matter.
>>
>> I think we should probably not express a preference either way. It
>> seems like a decision for each operator to make individually. What we
>> probably should do is stop inventing more solutions.
>>
> 
> Why?
> 
> I was told the same thing about 464xlat, we did not need another solution.
> If the ietf held the line against double translation i believe there would
> be exactly 1 ipv6 cellular provider in the world (verizon).
> 
> With 464xlat, afaik, there are globally 3 cellular providers that offer
> default ipv6 (464xlat at tmobile us and Orange PL and DS at VZ).

OK, but beyond a certain point vendors will want to stop adding options
and operators will want finite choices. We must be very close to that point
now.

> It does not matter if the cat is white or black, it matters that it catches
> mice.

The pragmatist in me agrees with you. The former software team leader in
me is stressed out with the choices.

    Brian

> 
> CB
> 
>> (In parenthesis, I've never seen sunsetting IPv4 as a real problem.
>> One day somebody will notice that there are no more IPv4 packets. But
>> that is many years in the future.)
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>