Subject: Re: [3gv6] FW: DNS Assignment for NAT64

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:27:46 +0200

(Replying to old mail. Sorry.)

Hui,

> I am talking some fixed box, other than software
> You want to supply 100,000 applications or you want to supply 5 Oss?
>   
Actually, if you count all versions of MacOS, Windows, Linux, BSD, smart 
phone OSes, OSes that are not general purpose, firmware revisions in 
appliances, and so on, you will end up with a number that is far higher 
than five. I have seven different OS versions just in my home. And to be 
a bit provocative, the number of applications people actually use might 
not necessarily be that big (browser, mail client) and those 
applications pretty universally support IPv6 since years ago :-)

But perhaps more importantly, I would just like to avoid ALL of this 
upgrading. Its very costly and largely unnecessary. From where I sit, 
dual stack + nat44 for the v4 side looks VERY attractive. There are some 
situations where v6-only + nat64 is possible, and for those situations I 
recommend that model. But its not clear to me that we need to support 
all possible variations of other levels of IP protocol support in our 
networks. Once you go beyond dual stack the need to know what the host 
supports increases dramatically. There are significant costs to 
obtaining such knowledge. For instance, it might imply the provisioning 
of a different APN in mobile networks, new protocols to query hosts, 
operational effort, and you are still left with some residual risk that 
some hosts will not function correctly.

Jari

---

From: "Hui Deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:45:45 +0800

Jari

Inline please,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:28 PM
> To: Hui Deng
> Cc: 'Sri Gundavelli'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [3gv6] FW: DNS Assignment for NAT64
> 
It's true that there are lots of different server or special machine using
various kind of Oss.
But from my personal view, maybe less than 5 Oss could cover several 
hundred millions mobile today which is needed to support IPv6.

> dual stack + nat44 for the v4 side looks VERY attractive. There are some
Dual stack have been running for 10 years and expensive as most operators
pointing out in this list.
Secondly it isolate the v4 and v6 world totally, it will be not that easy to
make 
another new world without interaction with very successful traditional
world.
Upgrading is always needed when we make an innovation.

> all possible variations of other levels of IP protocol support in our
There is a dual stack host on one side, there also is another v4 server on
the other side,
Why we need prevent v4 applications from visiting outside.

> some hosts will not function correctly.
LIPA always need a new APN, not always necessarily.
There are already 1000 protocol need to query hosts.
Lots of people said, single stack network is much easy operation effort.
There are lots of technique engineer there, until now we haven't see
malfunction.

Thanks for the discussion

-Hui

---

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:58:02 +0800

Hi Jari,

I am wondering what's your opinion for DSMIPv6 which needs OS updates.
I think people should hold the "host modification" criterion fair
enough for different technologies.

Thanks,
Cao Zhen
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> appliances, and so on, you will end up with a number that is far higher than
> five. I have seven different OS versions just in my home. And to be a bit
> provocative, the number of applications people actually use might not
> necessarily be that big (browser, mail client) and those applications pretty
> universally support IPv6 since years ago :-)
>
> upgrading. Its very costly and largely unnecessary. From where I sit, dual
> stack + nat44 for the v4 side looks VERY attractive. There are some
> recommend that model. But its not clear to me that we need to support all
> possible variations of other levels of IP protocol support in our networks.
> Once you go beyond dual stack the need to know what the host supports
> increases dramatically. There are significant costs to obtaining such
> knowledge. For instance, it might imply the provisioning of a different APN
> in mobile networks, new protocols to query hosts, operational effort, and
> you are still left with some residual risk that some hosts will not function
> correctly.
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> 3gv6 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/3gv6
>