[LAC-TF] +casos de la region ? (ERA: Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies (fwd))
Azael Fernandez Alcantara
afaza at unam.mx
Fri Mar 16 16:30:02 BRT 2018
Ultimo correo :)
Gusto ver ya hay un intento de un caso de la region, pero faltan mas.
Mensaje enviado sin acentos
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Azael Fernandez Alcantara wrote:
> Input from our region is missing !!
> ---------- 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:
> (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
> 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
> 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
> (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?
More information about the LACTF