Re: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02

[Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>]

On 4/20/10 2:42 AM, "Rémi Després" <remi.despres@free.fr> wrote:

>> It's both: no IPv4 connectivity, and IPv6 - IPv4 interworking.
> 
> OK, this is a vocabulary problem.
> (To me, NAT64s provide IPv4 connectivity to hosts that are IPv6-only enabled.)
> 
>> Dual-stack deployments do not have either of these.
> 
> Here, I am confused.
> In my understanding, dual stack everywhere provides IPv4 connectivity.
> 

Right. I meant Dual-stack deployments *do not* have "*no* IPv4 connectivity
&& IPv6-IPv4 interworking" considerations.

>> 
>> Well, someone has to start. There are arguments on why some want to do
>> IPv6-only in mobile networks.
> 
> I understand the argument about a single routing family in the access network,
> and agree with it.
> But like 6rd permits public IPv6 across IPv4-only infrastructures, reversed
> 6rd (say 4rd) permits to offer public IPv4 (typically port-restricted) across
> IPv6-only infrastructures.
> 
> Since LTE handsets are new, having in them the simple support of 4rd shouldn't
> be a big deal, and AFAIKT would avoid, with operators that also support 4rd
> all problems associated with IPv4-IPv6 translations.
> It is clear that, until an easy to read and complete enough description of 4rd
> is available, entering into more details is difficult.
> I should therefore concentrate on writing it.
>     

Okay.

>> However, I do believe that there is a case for IPv6-only deployments from a
>> variety of angles, including - private IPv4 address exhaustion, side effects
>> of overlapped addresses etc., investments in NAT44, speedier transition to
>> IPv6 and so on. This does have costs associated with it, as you point out
>> above.
> 
> If you agree, we can resume the discussion when the 4rd description is
> available.
> 

Okay.

>> It may be worthwhile to refer to NAT64+DNS64 considerations to an
>> appropriate BEHAVE document?
> 
> Maybe, but your draft seems a good place to start with.
> 

I was wondering if these issues are already documented somewhere..

>> Again, I would point out that the ID is not intending to prefer IPv6-only
>> over Dual-stack. The latter is the default, the former should be a choice,
>> at least for some. I will clarify..
> 
> Thanks for this discussion.

Welcome.

-Rajeev


> RD