IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Fri, 19 January 2018 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 86F7612D72F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:15:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2fFX1_lBEvgu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C4B61270FC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w0JKFpdZ003600 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:15:51 -0500
Received: (qmail 3347 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jan 2018 20:15:51 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 174.64.33.182
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.101?) (lee@asgard.org@174.64.33.182) by 0 with ESMTPA; 19 Jan 2018 20:15:50 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:15:48 -0500
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <D687BC24.92CC1%lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: discussion of transition technologies
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3599219750_74824803"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Gi3OeSdPKbwC-0dCMUO0CIvati8>
Subject: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
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: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:15:55 -0000

The WG Chairs were discussing the various transition technologies at some
length today.
I mentioned a previous conversation in another forum that led to this list
of networks and their mechanisms:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ksOoWOaRdRyjZnjLSikHf4O5L1OUTNOO_7NK
9vcVApc/edit#gid=0
(Corrections and additions encouraged, especially with links)

Our impression was that of the 26+ transition mechanisms defined, only a few
have any modern relevance (editorial comments are mine, not consensus
positions):
6rd.   It may be that its light is waning, with early deployments moving to
native IPv6, and no new deployments.
DS-Lite.   Widely deployed, existing support among home gateway
manufacturers.
NAT64/464xlat.   Implies NAT64, SIIT, which may be used elsewhere. Handset
CLATs. No home gateway CLAT yet.
MAP-T.   Announced trials and lots of buzz, but no large-scale deployments,
no home gateway support yet.
MAP-E.   Some buzz, no announced trials or deployments, no home gateway
support yet.
Native dual-stack.   Still the gold standard, but doesn’t solve IPv4 address
shortage.

(Note that “yet” may change at any time).
As a matter of discussion, do you agree?
To guide our work, is there work we should do to document or deprecate any
of these?

Thanks,

Lee

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email