On 10/7/16, 6:27 AM, "sunset4 on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<sunset4-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote:
>This is what I’m proposing. May be I miss explained it.
>
>NOT asking EVERY device in our network to HAVE 464XLAT client (CLAT), but
>having ONLY our “CPE” to have it.
>
>Nodes will not notice anything.
>
>This is what is going to happen in the future in most of the networks because
>they will not have IPv4 for every customer, so why not trying it ourselves?
>Already happening in many cellular networks, like in US, which are close to
>have 60% IPv6 traffic already.
You think 464xlat is what's going to happen in the future in most networks?
Mobile networks, yes, it's a primary transition mechanisms.
Wi-fi networks operated by ISPs or enterprises are more likely to use NAT64,
DS-Lite, or MAP, based on what I'm seeing people working on.
My fear with 464xlat is that it's largely untested in environments like the
IETF. I would not support making it the default SSID. We've had a NAT64 SSID
for several years; it could be promoted to default, if we can demonstrate with
confidence that everyone can still get their work done.
Lee
>
>Saludos,
>Jordi
>
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: sunset4 <sunset4-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de Philip Homburg
><pch-sunset...@u-1.phicoh.com>
>Responder a: <pch-sunset...@u-1.phicoh.com>
>Fecha: viernes, 7 de octubre de 2016, 12:04
>Para: <sunset4@ietf.org>
>CC: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net>
>Asunto: Re: [sunset4] Sunset4 work
>
> In your letter dated Thu, 06 Oct 2016 23:28:32 +0000 you wrote:
> > Nastygram. So make the default IETF SSIDs IPv6-only or (+NAT64)
> > if you want. Then have the ietf-legacy network, which would give
> > you IPv4 and a portal page penalty that you have to state the nature
> > why you have to use this network and cant live on the default one.
> > Id be so curious to see what happens when people finally have to
> > start thinking about it.. and open internal tickets .. It was
> > great fun doing it 6-ish years ago, ..
>
> Personally, I consider offering NAT64 over wifi quite absurd. The obvious
> way to provide access to legacy IPv4 is some form of NAT4. How it is
> transported over the rest of the network is upto the network operator. But
> the obvious interface is RFC 894.
>
> So on networks that promote NAT64 (FOSDEM has this setup for quite a
> number of
> years now) I just connect to the legacy network. Their legacy network has
> perfectly fine IPv6, so I consider it way better than the NAT64 that
> 'everybody' likes to push.
>
> For the specific mobile weirdness, NAT64 make sense. But everywhere else,
> requiring every device to have 464xlat to deal with IPv4 literals is just
> bad engineering. If your backbone is IPv6-only, then the obvious solution
> is to deal with this in CPEs, wifi access points, etc. Not to require all
> hosts to know the details of your network.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
sunset4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
