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

[Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com>]

Hi Gert,



I agree with you that IPv4 only applications/website will run out. But it 
will happen some years later.



Because different operators face a lack of IPv4 addresses not the same case. 
Not all operators support IPv6 at the same time and not all operators deploy 
the same technology in their network when transit to IPv6. So the host will 
be various (IPv4 only, IPv6 only, dual stack) and the time that applications 
support IPv6 or support across NAT64 will not be at the same time. This is 
why we need so many tunnel/translate technologies for IP version transition. 
(e.g.draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite, RFC5569, RFC5214, 
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful, RFC3089, etc.)



If an operator deploys native IPv6 in its network first and deploys NAT64, 
many applications will not be served till these applications support IPv6 or 
across NAT64, this will lead the losing of subscribers for operators.



Another idealistic solution to solve the problems is that all networks, 
applications, host support IPv6 immediately. Then there is no problem for IP 
version transition. Is this is possible?



For example, an ICP (Internet Content Provider) which is in USA supports 
IPv4 and across NAT44, and its customers are mainly from USA. If the 
operators in USA don't deploy IPv6 now, and only one Chinese operator deploy 
native IPv6. Only a few customers of the ICP are subscribers for operators, 
the ICP will not support IPv6 immediately. This will lead to the losing of 
subscribers for this IPv6 operator.




B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>
To: "Tina TSOU" <tena@huawei.com>
Cc: "'Fred Baker'" <fred@cisco.com>; "YangGL" <iamyanggl@gmail.com>; 
<v4tov6transition@ietf.org>; "'IPv6 v6ops'" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; "'Kurt 
Erik Lindqvist'" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>; "'Behave WG'" <behave@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC


> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:12:58AM +0800, Tina TSOU wrote:
> [..]
> > No one has the right to request these applications must support NAT64
> > traversal,
> [..]
> > NAT64. Since these applications are existing applications, no one has 
> > right
> > to requesting stop using these applications.
> [..]
> > 4) No one has the right to force all the UE to support IPV6, therefore 
> > from
> > the technology evolution point of view, we don't have to consider IPV4 
> > only
> [..]
>
> I'm wondering which parallel universe this is going to happen.
>
> In my universe, IPv4 is going to run out, and if there is no more IPv4,
> these applications will either get fixed, or die.  Very straightforward.
>
> gert
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  155817
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. 
> Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279