Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call
> of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines. Please read it now. If you find
> nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the
> authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or
> finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your
> comments to the list.
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document
> as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be
> of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.

Dear authors,

I remain troubled that we are still pushing dual-stack as the
preferred transition mechanism.  I think we should add more language
stating that IPv6-only + NAT64 is very viable for general use,
especially in mobile, a very high growth area for IP address usage.

Jari has already presented his finding, which i view as very positive,
here http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/behave-6.pdf

I would like to see some of the content from his deck added to this
draft.  As it stands, the draft gives me the impression that IPv6-only
is only for niche deployments and futuristic sensor networks.  Today,
IPv6-only is a real solution that i have trials going on with, and i
believe it is very functional for most common users, more at
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta

Also, unilateral sounds bad.  Makes me feel like IPv6-only is not a
cooperative or friendly path.  I would say "Pure IPv6" or "IPv6
end-state deployments" which require gateways to IPv4

IMHO, traditional dual-stack is not viable for transition.  There are
not incentives for me to dual stack at home, work, or while mobile.
Traditional dual-stack does not provide a better user experience and
it does not save me any IPv4 addresses.  Dual-stack + NAT44 may
eventually have some benefits if I can by-pass the NAT44 with native
IPv6.  Same can be said for DS-lite.  But, traditional dual-stack
(public IPv4 and IPv6) is a non-starter.  And the idealistic notion
that dual-stack leads to a future where eventually everything will go
IPv6 and we can just turn off IPv4 without anyone knowing stopped
being viable around 2005, transition time ran out and nobody deployed
it.  Without incentives (carrots, sticks, other ...) dual-stack will
remain a science experiment for those inclined to do so, not a real
solution for end users numbering.  The real solutions that real
network service providers are deploying are address sharing mechanisms
that favor IPv6 end to end (DS + NAT44, DS-lite, NAT64).  Anything
else does not have the appropriate market mechanisms (Bad CGN
experience, motivate IPv6 native content to avoid CGN, uniquely
numbered users for e2e multimedia) to engender change.

I believe the IETF needs to be much more forceful in pushing
IPv6-first solutions.  Straddling the fence with traditional
dual-stack in not a real solution and re-enforces the notion that "I
do not have to do anything with IPv6, since dual-stack people will
always have IPv4" or "IPv6-only is not ready".  If we embrace a more
aggressive IPv6 path (which is the reality of IPv4 exhaust), then we
begin to stimulate the Internet ecosystem to understand that IPv4 is
really not the best strategic investment for client to (server | cloud
| client) communications.

Regards,

Cameron

ps.  Even in the face of IPv4 exhaust *you* don't need to be worried
about IPv4 exhaust
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/360418/why-you-shouldnt-worry-about-ipv6-just-yet