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

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

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
<behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I don't believe i need to convince the 3GPP of anything since they are
not directly involved in designing my network.  Granted, it is nice
when our ideas align, but the standards and gear i use to execute on
my IPv6-only UE plans are already solid and my reference beta
deployment is complete with 50+ IPv6-only paying customers.  So, while
the 3GPP is writing docs, i am deploying services.  It is worth noting
that IPv6-only is part of the 3GPP doc, but clearly the 3GPP world is
focused on dual-stack with IPv4 addresses that providers don't have
now and won't have in the future (private or public addresses).

Regarding this 3GPP document you referenced:

http://3gppprotocol.com/web_documents/23975-111-ipv6-migr-guide.pdf

I don't like the language in it and i don't believe it accurately
reflects the sentiment and agreement that was achieved at the
IETF-3GPP meeting in San Francisco.

http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/workshop/2010-03-01_IPv4-to-IPv6_with-IETF/Docs./IPW100060.zip

In the IPv6-only section, it seems to reference host based translation
which was not popular at the meeting. I know that the host based
translation supporters have a new draft ... but that does not change
my perspective nor the official record on how to move forward from the
joint meeting.


Que sera sera.

Cameron