IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Some comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 23 April 2022 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 DE11B3A1B52; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 2Kmwp8rvxIYs; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (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 39C9A3A1B50; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id z16so9628191pfh.3; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bxWZ6LCn15o3/bSBxWV+90C88dBeKZpgPmwZZycnhCI=; b=IGLbu+dWHWbhc7WYdXgIXTkPFqp6quGspY5ycNBoSWp1xHJuxcSigHkGeacrtW/yWe 5yZ7TepxlXplaKXCPG4yMUPNdpVOedu1jQztxYOaTZjg4DatU0S3YQQmTZsCTTKJOVxF Nxj4Ux6eiplGMfe95oCCkY3DZYFKX8OWR1SA48tyuiLrVukR0A04X2m60zfTVhZvtUoF vuO1kzf8ahyZ4yWBh9ETbCtUhfuWIb6CBDg+8jhWNCqXW07aWyPbkgR8npcE5SRU2vHL 7Ysafi9o46/xuOLdOL7EDHairm8UnWJeLYFYyVDZIlFqGdkKD00f1JJzUmPDmTzGuyDl VtPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bxWZ6LCn15o3/bSBxWV+90C88dBeKZpgPmwZZycnhCI=; b=rFaZ825dV62QBntuz/EOZrszx48oWvEXXcUBiGcaaE6DQlsZriX8DAK7ea0c5hSmLK Pf5Z+7Mj32qmkeMcm9oTW8ebjcsZ8APDZuGQXuQC2JTBVdS2nNx27QvCuC/W6RQZ0aJU sRvABFFILYh2Z24nqxGmPWShHKIec714/kz1JL57JTJSjFyQseZD4kc/e6GBarGtbTmm CFIY4nRJVncItYZgt9Az1P0xlT7gEeYtqrYBzSkhRxw/vh0PJvNOUhj7pF/a/tucJ6qH lyQZsXVgWkXU343gwmptaxtHkgWOYFKW18A/2JEulpNmOqvduOtgcCZxoVwS5yRiMhIQ gdhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533B7wuhuGsWyltAXayY76N+XRHKNoi9rCWdMSRJ0Y88+5fpATd6 x6rwi+GM05EYou/0QpG0r58E6WZjKnsqzGrT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzyjy39HrT6Lr7twsz7vLLHWYK1GDjOu5iTBWbUd79G37tBMAIYQYU+tw88SgRkJ2vzZzABBg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6a85:0:b0:398:9e2b:afd6 with SMTP id f127-20020a636a85000000b003989e2bafd6mr6439606pgc.582.1650681021015; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.248.23.127] ([125.168.223.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g6-20020a056a001a0600b004f7bd56cc08sm3947217pfv.123.2022.04.22.19.30.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont=40edgeuno.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment@ietf.org, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <3008655b-2af6-7df0-1302-63cf81bad8b4@edgeuno.com> <9064DD1F-48F4-4A17-BDEC-72C0308B9314@gmail.com> <0ae6db1d-c54a-b45f-643e-b7f5a2ceda74@edgeuno.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f5841159-3a89-ebfe-a066-7d5b3622cd6b@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 14:30:15 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0ae6db1d-c54a-b45f-643e-b7f5a2ceda74@edgeuno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/y2Y_CR72r5j5qxZsjABm70yQLmY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Some comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
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: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 02:30:27 -0000

Some text:

Unfortunately, IPv4 was specified with no provision whatever for forwards 
compatibility with any method of extending its address space beyond 32 bits. It was therefore logically impossible for IPv6 (or any alternative proposal for an extended address space) to be backwards compatible with IPv4-only hosts. For this reason, coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6, dual stack nodes, and interworking based on encapsulation or header translation, were 
all unavoidable. These complications will continue until such time as all 
hosts and all networks fully support IPv6.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 23-Apr-22 10:33, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/4/22 16:23, Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 2022, at 4:48 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando.gont=40edgeuno.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't IPv6 *fully* incompatible with IPv4?
>>
>> I hear this a lot, and I think it's backwards, because it leads one to 
the presupposition that if only <something> had been done differently, IPv6 would have been backward-compatible with IPv4. "Those stupid people" and all that.
> 
> That's not what I;m saying. I;m just saying IPv6 is fully incompatible
> with IPv4. Do you disagree on this?
> 
> (FWIW, I think it's clear that intent was *not* for IPv6 to be
> backwards-compatible with IPv4.. so I'm not making any judgements
> here... just stating facts).
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> Director of Information Security
> EdgeUno
> PGP Fingerprint: DFBD 63E3 B248 AE79 C598 AF23 EBAE DA03 0644 1531
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “This communication is the property of EdgeUno or one of its group companies and/or affiliates. This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended 
to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and if you are not the intended recipient be aware that any non-explicitly authorized 
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, 
and will be considered a criminal offense. Please notify legal@edgeuno.com about the unintended receipt of this electronic message and delete it.”
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email