[LAC-TF] [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies (fwd)

[Azael Fernandez Alcantara]

FYI,

Input from our region is missing !!


BEST,
SALUDOS,
_______
Azael
UNAM
Mexico

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:15:48 -0600
From: Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org>
To: v6ops at 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
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops