Re: [v6ops] IPREF as a transitioning tool

[waldemar <[e-mail]>]

On 11/10/23 07:31, Martin Huněk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If it is required in every network in the whole Internet, then it is a blocker, isn't it?
No, not really, We're requiring every network to transition and it is 
not a blocker.
>
> Especially if it has to be in CPE, as many don't have any software support, and changes in HW take years to do.
>
> Dne pátek 10. listopadu 2023 9:30:12 CET, waldemar napsal(a):
>> On 11/9/23 22:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> There is nothing new in this proposal other than adding an unnecessary new DNS record.
>>>
>>> Many moons ago the IETF/IRTF was presented with a DNS server that talked to a NAT64 to
>>> establish A to AAAA mappings on demand to allow IPv4 machines to connect to IPv6 machines.
>>> See section 3.2 of your proposal.  It worked but clearly had scaling limitations as it needed
>>> a large IPv4 block to service a small IPv4 client base.  Putting one in every home CPE router
>>> would probably work but is it really necessary when 99.99% of clients already support dual
>>> stack.
>> ...scaling issues.  Yes, exactly. IPREF does not have scaling issues.
> If you put it in the CPE, you had to have the dual-stack all the way from the Internet to the CPE. Then you have got a dual-stack network. You are depending on both protocols until everyone transitions. If you do that, why should latecomers transition at all? Also, if everyone had to have dual-stack anyway, why use IPREF at all? Be aware that having GW on CPE means NAT/CGNAT on the operator's edge as it is now - if you do not have enough IPv4 public addresses to NAT on the GW. That can also be an issue.
There is no dual stacks with IPREF. It works differently than 
traditional tools. I guess, we really have to build it, then it would be 
easier to show it. I have a working model but model is not as convincing 
as a bona fide gateway (which could be a software upgrade on existing 
routers).  For now, maybe a detailed walkthrough would help. I'm 
guessing you already read it in the draft?? In that case, let's leave it 
at that with me saying dual stacks are not required.
>
>>> We already have the ability for IPv6 to connect to IPv6 to IPv4 using NAT64.  This can be run
>>> with initiating traffic coming from both directions at the same time.  IPv6 on the public side
>>> to IPv4 on the private side with static mapping and AAAA records in the DNS as well as the more
>>> common use of dynamic mappings when running IPv6 only on the private side.  This has been done
>>> for many years now.
>> ...thereby reinforcing IPv4. You will never do away with IPv4 Internet
>> this way.
>>
>> For as long as IPv4 Internet exists, the transition to IPv6 will never
>> be completed.  Are you concerned at all that this may happen? Has there
>> ever been a doubt in your mind that IPv4 might survive?  Is the fight
>> over transition tools worth risking IPv6? IPREF transitions only to pure
>> IPv6, it uses only pure IPv6 Internet. It removes IPv4 addresses.
> IPREF doesn't do that either - you need the dual-stack connectivity for the GW. BTW, if you use SIIT-DC, you don't have to have IPv4 inside your content-providing network. If you use NAT64, you also do not have IPv4 in your network. In both cases, traffic going through the translator is only the one for that it is needed, not all the traffic.
I guess, this is related to the comment above. Dual stacks are not 
needed. If you haven't read the draft, or read it quickly, there is a 
detailed walkthrough describing how packets travel over the different 
address spaces. At no point there is a need for dual stacks (gateways 
have them of course, but that's not what we're talking about here).
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>