Despite how much I like all those ideas, I don't think we are ready to have an
IPv6-only IETF network.
Unfortunately, there are many applications, VPNs, etc., which will not work
just with NAT64, because literals, etc.
I will suggest something alternative at this stage:
Having the IETF network as a typical SME or residential customer of an ISP
which has run out of IPv4 addresses, provides an IPv6-only WAN link and uses
CLAT (464XLAT) at the customer CPE.
This means having GUA addresses but only private IPv4 address, and having a
router behaving as the IETF network “CPE” supporting CLAT.
Of course we still need the NAT64+DNS64.
This way, we will have a high proportion of IPv6 traffic and we can take some
measurements about “what” apps and Internet end-points are still using the
NAT64/DNS64, and what apps are using the CLAT and we can also have the
secretariat or ISOC to make sure to talk with those organizations to let know
them that they have a problem …
Saludos,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: sunset4 <sunset4-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org>
Responder a: <l...@asgard.org>
Fecha: jueves, 6 de octubre de 2016, 21:03
Para: <sunset4@ietf.org>
Asunto: [sunset4] Sunset4 work
After the last WG meeting, I walked away with seven things that I thought
we needed to do:
1. Update my v4historic draft. I intend to do this in time for the Seoul
meeting.
2. Phillip Hallam-Baker suggested something like
"draft-baker-ipv4status-its-complicated." I would like to hear more about this,
and read a draft.
3. The IAB should tell partner SDOs that their work should support IPv6.
We're working on this, and should have an update before the meeting.
4. The IESG or IETF community should squelch IPv4-only charters. I think
the IESG would rather see a community statement, so we're hoping for a draft in
the next couple of weeks.
5. WG Chairs and IETF communicty looks for IPv4 literals, IPv4-only
examples, IPv4 dependencies, and clean them up. Does anyone see a way to
structure this, or is there no followup to be had here?
6. Run IPv6+NAT64 as the default IETF SSID. I've discussed with Jari and
Jim, and they're only reluctant if doing this impedes participants getting work
done. Does anyone have any ideas for how to show this? Volunteers?
7. Update id-nits checked to look for IPv4-only examples. Done!
I therefore think there's enough work to justify a meeting in Seoul, and
have said so to the WG chairs.
On this list, I'd like to hear ideas about how to structure work/followup
on #5 and #6.
Are there other topics we should discuss?
Thanks,
Lee
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
sunset4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
sunset4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
