[LAC-TF] +casos de la region ? (ERA: Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies (fwd))

[Azael Fernandez Alcantara]

Buen Dia,

Ultimo correo :)

Gusto ver ya hay un intento de un caso de la region, pero faltan mas.


SALUDOS
_______
Azael
____________________________
Mensaje enviado sin acentos

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Azael Fernandez Alcantara wrote:

>
>
> 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
>