[lacnog] [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Lee Howard lee en asgard.org
Mar Ene 23 17:57:56 BRST 2018

Estimados todos,

Hay una hoja de cálculo en
9vcVApc/edit#gid=0  y me gustaría sus contribuciones.

Solo hay unas pocas tecnologías enumeradas (dual stack, NAT64, 464xlat, 6rd,
DS-Lite, MAP). ¿Hay otros en uso en esta región?

Incluso si no escribe en v6ops, me gustaría saber más de la región.

There's a spreadsheet at (the link above) and I would like your

Only a few technologies are listed (dual stack, NAT64, 464xlat, 6rd,
DS-Lite, MAP). Are others in use in this region?

Even if you don’t write to v6ops, I would like to know more from this


Há uma planilha em (o link acima) e eu gostaria de suas contribuições.

Somente algumas tecnologias estão listadas (dual stack, NAT64, 464xlat, 6rd,
DS-Lite, MAP). Outros são usados nesta região?

Mesmo que você não escreva para o v6ops, eu gostaria de saber mais desta


Gracias e obrigado,


On 1/19/18, 3:31 PM, "LACNOG on behalf of Azael Fernandez Alcantara"
<lacnog-bounces en lacnic.net on behalf of afaza en unam.mx> wrote:

> FYI,
> Input from our region is missing !!
> _______
> Azael
> Mexico
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:15:48 -0600
> From: Lee Howard <lee en asgard.org>
> To: v6ops en ietf.org
> Subject: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
> The WG Chairs were discussing the various transition technologies at some
> length today.
> I mentioned a previous conversation in another forum that led to this list
> of networks and their mechanisms:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ksOoWOaRdRyjZnjLSikHf4O5L1OUTNOO_7NK
> 9vcVApc/edit#gid=0
> (Corrections and additions encouraged, especially with links)
> Our impression was that of the 26+ transition mechanisms defined, only a few
> have any modern relevance (editorial comments are mine, not consensus
> positions):
> 6rd.   It may be that its light is waning, with early deployments moving to
> native IPv6, and no new deployments.
> DS-Lite.   Widely deployed, existing support among home gateway
> manufacturers.
> NAT64/464xlat.   Implies NAT64, SIIT, which may be used elsewhere. Handset
> CLATs. No home gateway CLAT yet.
> MAP-T.   Announced trials and lots of buzz, but no large-scale deployments,
> no home gateway support yet.
> MAP-E.   Some buzz, no announced trials or deployments, no home gateway
> support yet.
> Native dual-stack.   Still the gold standard, but doesn’t solve IPv4 address
> shortage.
> (Note that “yet” may change at any time).
> As a matter of discussion, do you agree?
> To guide our work, is there work we should do to document or deprecate any
> of these?
> Thanks,
> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops en ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog

------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20180123/52fe7f76/attachment.html>

Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG