IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

Paul Marks <pmarks@google.com> Wed, 18 October 2017 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pmarks@google.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 6FAEB13292A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 K0F6EPBZQsM4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (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 BCA091321A1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j2so4241640vki.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xF32X89nw76Rx66KiliCo4vGS3NbnBX+LLYLTcRWLfc=; b=bjhB7ykyzbgj4YIUVoVvuAyb3ov3r6cx00b65DT/nl3fp+Qgwg0ivlT0BnKZyqDKNH SQ4Pxucua0nFWm+9jgvZvfLbCQnvN/EiwVYVykWTpV9l4U+IPZlQiWAmcXBGsaqT8UXl eU6mfLm88QzNwHbQ3QY1wMsX5302Guh6lE2NMrBtA+/foxpyJ2MXEIKWwrPLIHD6fCLR 3E0fhodPxTKiesRaqZOJJheRoHk6ZzZrNoec1iYKwQ1vgydr9VTPaHQFnhnvepspqlYl tRFZ21AAp0bvidckirVIqeoy/5aI7kL/Kw9OBPCFjX2j5Y1jbBr7peJlSCmjA4B4ieo2 8Emw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xF32X89nw76Rx66KiliCo4vGS3NbnBX+LLYLTcRWLfc=; b=nJqH+PQPPg5LwXzFdd+YlknBAu10FBlzVGdtqIIyHjSHWbx6P4f6gc65jc4mUHNi5m RazQQVVRFDBV0/tZAC358CySplRcixIdjMbv2p6GtWUzPakS9Ik3pU9YQPhHV68kOgmt XqovSQ+N71+YOUr5KJfKUYuAvlxeZmqyBHt6MrQz13xAXlymbEK1nHeH5GpRIJhkeYMd RziWRf1XjcP/4TcIiyrcG6zUDwuqK6/x4WxvCWo7KIM75jZkH89T4LmxiSb3sR1nvNVH gcYiOSAJPAUVz+4ylzNmU0IfKw5SY5iPYsDRkr/M4y13C6PLR0hjMMTO3bVRyxYMr8RI TykQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXvibOX83Zf+lfqX2Yd7sCO71vLrjbV7eODls8yWL33TnpQG0M4 ZwFM4ADSagUL6KnyNHlRFoTnJMI0DZ6/WWQ6WGIV07pw
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TmEgYxZMUmdIJ8924KKofXUwuoqOdQpQXdNRdOYDL5bDPZHmICS4VX7DJYNLDQ6UuK7xgXzHrrxsp3G57A9iw=
X-Received: by 10.31.191.133 with SMTP id p127mr6984594vkf.90.1508364042597; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.193.141 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20395E98-DA55-447F-BEFE-CB581A88BB78@gmail.com>
References: <f403045ef57ac52962055bd88b84@google.com> <20395E98-DA55-447F-BEFE-CB581A88BB78@gmail.com>
From: Paul Marks <pmarks@google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:00:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHaKRvJPeJDBZx+aZqPqd0_LOm2PUNBvLJfqBOJq3SyeNaPv_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yKyDS4PkGoMsU3MxhigLmvBZigY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6
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: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:00:46 -0000

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, this may be a dumb question. IPv6 advocates will reflexively agree with
> comments on “CGNAT is a bad idea”. But as operators who very likely have
> some combination of IPv6 and CGNAT, do we have thoughtful experience-based
> comments on this topic?

CGNAT is unavoidable, until IPv4 is turned off completely.  There are
more humans than IPv4 addresses, so somebody needs to share.

Deploying CGNAT without deploying IPv6 first is a bad idea.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email