RE: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4tov6transition-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 4:07 PM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: IPv6 v6ops; Ron Bonica; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; Kurt Erik
> Lindqvist
> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
> WGLC
> 
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >
> >> IPv6-only host must emerge as the edge grows (mobile ..., M2M, ...)
> >
> > I certainly agree with that. Understand that mobile handsets are
> already and increasingly both IPv4 and IPv6 capable. The issue is in
> the network, and it is in the applications that those handsets use. The
> applications like to call gethostbyname() instead of getaddrinfo(), and
> as a result are IPv4-aware instead of being network layer agnostic.
> That was Hui Deng's point in the two 3GPP/IETF joint workshops and in
> the pnat discussion in behave. This document grew out of a powerpoint
> presentation, pointed to as an informative reference, that I gave at
> the first of those workshops, and summarizes both that talk and Jari's
> experience using Ericsson's NAT64 solution at home.
> >
> 
> Just focusing on mobile, here ... Jari states IPv6-only works well for
> mobile.  I believe one of his docs (Google preso)  states it
> approaches 100% functionality.
> 
> PNAT did not achieve much support and was not advanced (right?),
> despite a strong effort from Hui.

The in-host IPv4->IPv6 translation aspect of PNAT is alive, 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huang-behave-bih-01, and is
part of the currently-planned charter for BEHAVE,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg08688.html,
"Apr 2011, Submit to IESG: host-based NAT46 translation for 
           IPv4-only applications to access IPv6-only servers (std)".

Send feedback to iesg@iesg.com

-d

> Like IPv4 literals, i believe the general issues in mobile apps are
> trivial.  I presented my experience at the Google conference.  Notice
> not many apps are impacted
> https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda/13_Byrne_T-
> Mobile_IPv6GoogleMeeting.pdf
> 
> My FUT users, along with my own experience, is that very few apps fail
> when ipv6-only
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta/browse_thread/thread/6fc0633
> f0313b588
> 
> I understand that the desktop space, and in particular games and
> skype, have problems with IPv6-only.  But, mobile is different.  The
> SDKs for Apple, Symbian, and Android have done a good job at forcing
> the developers to be IP version agnostic..... which means most apps
> are IPv6 capable by default, not by app designers own volition.
> 
> 
> > If I were king, and note that I am not at this instant wearing my
> shiny working group chair crown, I'm wearing my dusty author's beret,
> gethostbyname would disappear and applications that use it would be
> given the option of complaining to /dev/null or fixing their code. At
> some point, maybe the 3G vendors could help us out there...
> 
> As far as i can tell, for the most part, your desire has been
> achieved.  If you believe otherwise, please contact me off list to
> find out how you can join the IPv6-only beta.
> 
> Cameron
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition