In message
<212835829(_dot_)114144965(_dot_)1485306337275(_dot_)JavaMail(_dot_)zimbra(_at_)peachymango(_dot_)org>,
Franck Martin writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "Franck Martin" <franck(_at_)peachymango(_dot_)org>, "IETF"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 4:33:22 PM
Subject: Re: IPv4 outage at next IETF in Chicago
On 25/01/2017 12:11, Franck Martin wrote:
I think it is time to move to the next level of IPv6 deployment.
Ideally the IETF WiFi network should now only provide the following 2 netw
orks:
1)IPv6-only
2)IPv6-only with NAT64
The later should be the default network.
However you would say, well some stuff will break, some non technical
people will use the IETF network and may have a bad experience, etc...
So to be conservative but at the same time futurist and like it was
done a few years back, why not create again an IPv4 outage of a few
hours where the above 2 networks would be the only networks available?
That would be a good way of damaging IETF productivity for a few hours.
Do you have evidence of applications not running in a NAT64 environment? I'm
interested to know them.
Anything that really wants to know is AAAA records exist or not.
You don't run NAT64 w/o DNS64 and that munges with DNS answers.
Lots of what I do would break because of that. I need to know the
truth, not the lies from DNS64. And yes I have written DNS64 code.
And for what? Moving away from the mainstream coexistence mechanism (dual
stack),
to a mechanism known to be intrinsically defective (NAT). I don't see
the point.
I fail to see how NAT is intrinsically defective, since it is used
successfully by everyone...
No one successfully uses NAT. They just put up with its limitations.
There is a big difference. That said there will always be limitations
delivering IPv4 going into the future.
Nevertheless, the goal here is to get the Internet designers (IETF) to
have operational experience on what needs to be fixed.
Step 1. Stop saying to use NAT64. There are other ways to provide
IPv4 as as a service with IPv6 only all the way to the node.
When the IPv4 outage happened a few years back, it gave a serious impetus
in getting IPv6 totally mainstream on many platforms.
IAB encourages IPv6: https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/
However going IPv6-only can only be done in walled gardens. There still will
be many environments with IPv4 only. A solution here is to move networks to
NAT64, so you only need to support IPv4 at the edges...
No. The goal is IPv6-only access networks with IPv4 as service,
then IPv6-only within the home / enterprise with IPv4 as a service.
Note this doesn't specify a solution.
Yes creating an outage for the sake of an outage is pointless, experience on
what works and not work needs to be recorded.
May be the first step instead of doing an outage is to have as default
a NAT6 4 network at IETF meetings and a dual stack network for the people
that experience issues.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org