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

[Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>]

Hi Cameron,




> 
> 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 agree but you need to convince 3GPP on this. If you read 23.975, they 
recommend dual-stack and that's it.

Regards,

Behcet