Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@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 3B23913529F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 k6TjGPzbcqcM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x232.google.com (mail-yw0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::232]) (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 B61191321DE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x232.google.com with SMTP id i6so178333ywc.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:57:48 -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; bh=KfXqmjmrTo7XnNNpdyMKEjYvNchKz2f1P2F+yJaymn4=; b=hbSBovY9uCcou/AaMnH1SZXzPKLzEE4zRBr9vrsIkBJURCcCsKejWbnRRUbi/BTnfs daurjMQlOUm+B0S1p+LhdALSLm9caSkrH5xTjvjXYdetscPmn/7RrEUBQnC5FTnAS4AH f3rF9aVu509oQlrC8k7pWmBHDaFwGcN1qIMtBPKaR9Yw7rtemE8rvVooOGmuGdYaSeue cr6U1k0yFAfj04XkXgWSzpMkolFdk9de1v/GuCy5w8I97ZSX67/Gak/JGStcqOVCpZUq /oxPOJFIU3D0IcON7kYz6qI0I+LnJh3GqGxIhJVoNGRDj+x6osdr+wGLZpTwQ7WzDPuq onVA==
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; bh=KfXqmjmrTo7XnNNpdyMKEjYvNchKz2f1P2F+yJaymn4=; b=QxQOOc9B8zt6r2Xgx1x6lWqEN5HlLNPdMc6IoE9YNhb0utlYXTbkkq0gZo+QQCcgNX gAgEx8hB3rp760qvzg4KqYTIPYqETU6rinUs3IpQaZ78sswN6KwCipZQKvvLPnVrS60v H+6uSP2yxMlH8XQmBYiq0wkXV+J6AJN+hgqISxVeq5j2WfeqRhcFLllFkedlbZhND205 lJiLWmFU14Er+HMgI7IxG4tVjIlPtDZrquxQ6ADXi8B6u7UasMV2r1PE6EbBFZuwX13z NdoO6HXF0pPUEP8Uzbb5NEweAPCXbX2pgebjm8yRmBErL9P2C7LSzLWaU4UIr1oc0Ar0 Yt/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgMNhMc4SPdXP0f+w0dl1HkQWMXmoywiGCvXAANJDklxG1BNBs1 lZ5QvsFBRGg3PD4qimYzNulgwe9Bmn64ll9k/dX83KGm+ps=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBoHJ9OaoTqmee7km5YXWnIUS+CWGD3Fi7c8BLuAWZRZRK9s01FU6tADmCitWX0u8vJT+meIuP3EOyTy/RdBEw=
X-Received: by 10.129.165.66 with SMTP id c63mr2610257ywh.143.1506571067533; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.214.213 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170928030630.DD2D08867238@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <LO1P123MB01168388285206BB7C26F029EA7A0@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <46045DAA-9096-43BA-A5FD-571232767726@google.com> <CAKD1Yr3vziaHfkR+hQ7QHXaz7QraKH2HLUVXUW63GpnOAj4JoQ@mail.gmail.com> <E72C3FBE-57A4-4058-B9E5-F7392C9E9101@google.com> <LO1P123MB0116805F9A18932E2D0694FEEA780@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1496304E-54BE-47FA-A7F1-1AA6E163DAB1@employees.org> <CAD6AjGQdMFgv4727wHm41HmEyo2Z-PCabPHPSRSVwOi_rey7OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr03zsuSBqPegs6RNbBqnJizUOLZwH+rNDi1Ocg4k+mARQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170928030630.DD2D08867238@rock.dv.isc.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:57:26 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2aJ_K1SjXREFKvjkOiK3t54HVMCibntrtX6S-qocrD8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Heatley, N, Nick, TQB R" <nick.heatley@bt.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c12926a4fd925055a37e9f6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ys2SZ18cs-G9u9gPwIulQ5XW4QU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)
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: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:57:50 -0000

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> > What he said. For many operators, the choice was between a) 60% (and
> > growing) native IPv6 traffic, 30% NAT64 traffic, and 5% NAT464 traffic,
> and
> > b) 100% NAT44 traffic.
>
> Garbage.  At worst it would have been growing IPv6 traffic + dropping
> NAT44 traffic.  THE OPERATORS ONLY HAD TO TURN ON DUAL STACK.
>

I take it you're not aware that certain 3GPP network releases don't support
dual-stack at all but do support IPv6-only.