[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
<927EA826-CEF7-4942-8AA5-45C0FA353446@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [v4tov6transition] FW: New Version Notification
fordraft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-01
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:40:35 -0400
Message-ID: <C7F5DB277EC04D64A613D611E450076B@23FX1C1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <927EA826-CEF7-4942-8AA5-45C0FA353446@cisco.com>
Thread-Index: ActQAfvOsal3v+W1TBi4a0jfyjmvKgAXQ+iA
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
+1
actually I feel quite strongly about this not being about keeping
ipv4.
Can I say +6?
dbh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:21 AM
> To: Yiu L. Lee
> Cc: IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] FW: New Version Notification
> fordraft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-01
>
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Yiu L. Lee wrote:
> >> The objective is to turn on IPv6;
> >
> > I agree with that, but please don't forget the other
> important objective: To continue offer v4 services during
> transition while no more public v4 address is available.
>
> I hope I have been clear that keeping your IPv4 business
> running is something I agree is important for the lifetime of
> that IPv4-only equipment and software.
>
> The problem is that you really don't have a lot of options in
> that; there is no magic that this working group or anyone
> else can provide for you, which is why the IPv6 Forum and
> others have spent the past decade trying to get companies to
> prepare themselves for this point. Once you cannot reliably
> get global IPv4 addresses, you will be forced to use RFC 1918
> space within the ISP on paths to customers, who further NAT
> themselves. Since the edge user's domains use 10.0.0.0/8 and
> 192.168.0.0/16, but 172.16.0.0/12 is less widely used,
> 172.16.0.0/12 is your option. You build multiple instances of
> it, as many as you need, and you NAT those areas to the
> general Internet.
>
> The effect of that is much like today's IPv4 Internet with
> NAT around the periphery, but applications work even less
> well than they do in the single-NAT'd IPv4 of today. I can
> think of more than one ISP that has built layered NAT domains
> and has come to me asking me to speak with the RIRs on their
> behalf, because it is no fun for the ISP and no fun for the
> customer. As a vendor, I talk with customers that use CGN
> now. They don't talk about being "on the Internet" as much as
> they talk about being some number of "hops away from the
> Internet". IPv4 CGN is not a great service, but it's what
> exists if you don't have the address space to build out with
> global addresses.
>
> It's also a lot of effort for you. In essence, it means that
> you will renumber your network, withdrawing global addresses
> from customers and deploying private addresses. At some
> point, you will do so again - and again. It's a lot like
> running with a stack of plates; you can always handle "just
> one more on the pile" with a little extra effort, but at some
> point the cumulative extra effort becomes quite a bit.
>
> I will now refer you to the name of the email alias that Tina
> set up for this project. It is not KeepV4Running@ietf.org; it
> is V4toV6Transition@ietf.org. We'll acknowledge and help you
> with your very real business issues with your IPv4 network to
> the extent that we can, and we will expect the network
> operator groups to do the same. But if you don't spend at
> least as much concern and effort on moving into the IPv6
> future, it won't be our networks that are no longer viable
> businesses, it will be yours. You really can't expect a lot
> of sympathy for not taking advantage of the available
> education, or for lack of planning, given how long we have
> known we were coming to this point.
>
> Speaking as the Chair of the "IPv6 Operations Working Group",
> I very seriously expect, starting now and from this point
> forward, that the discussion will not be about "keeping IPv4
> running" anywhere near as much as it will be about IPv6
> deployment issues, IPv4/IPv6 coexistence issues, and
> strategizing on moving your network and your customers into
> the very real IPv6 future. Keeping IPv4 running for a period
> of time will be among those coexistence issues, but it must
> take second place to IPv6 deployment and operation of
> IPv6-only and dual stack networks.
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>