Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?

Jim Burwell jimb at jsbc.cc
Sat Jan 16 07:03:44 CST 2010


On 1/15/2010 23:45, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>
>> Sorry for late response here...
>>
>> On 1/14/2010 15:20, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jim Burwell <jimb at jsbc.cc
>>> <mailto:jimb at jsbc.cc>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2010 11:10, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> My question to the community is:  assuming a network based IPv6 to IP4
>>>>> translator is in place (like NAT64 / DNS64), are IPv6-only Internet
>>>>> services viable as a product today?  In particular, would it be
>>>>> appropriate for a 3G /smartphone or wireless broadband focused on at
>>>>> casual (web and email) Internet users?  Keep in mind, these users have
>>>>> NAT44 today.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You may also want to read up on Dual Stack Lite (DS-Lite)
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-02>,
>>>>
>>> I have looked at DS-lite very carefully.   First, DS-Lite fits better
>>> for cable operators since they have CPE and can have a DS-lite
>>> function in the CPE that they control, and that in turn allows them to
>>> provide IPv4, IPv6, and dual-stack to the end-host that they do not
>>> control.  DS-Lite does not fit as well for a mobile phones since it
>>> would require a major change to the phone's OS.  Second, DS-Lite
>>> requires tunneling as well as translation, so it is one more piece of
>>> overhead in addition to NAT64 solution.  For me, i believe it is less
>>> complex to manage a single stack IPv6 host with NAT64 translation than
>>> a dual stack host, tunneling infrastructure, as well as NAT44 CGN,
>>> which is what DS-lite requires.  They both achieve the same result,
>>> but I believe in the mobile space there is a quicker time to market as
>>> well as more progress toward the end-goal of IPv6-only using NAT64
>>> than DS-lite.
>>>
>> I guess the choice here is between standing up and managing a NAT64 CGN
>> + special DNS64 DNS server infrastructure, or a DS-Lite CGN + DS-Lite
>> tunneling infrastructure (you'd be able to keep existing "vanilla" DNS
>> servers).
>>
>>
> As I understand DS-Lite, an IPv6-capable device is a DS-Lite capable
> device
> without any modification.  The DS-Lite Gateway does all the heavy lifting
> to provide IPv4 services and do the NAT64 translation between the
> IPv6-only
> end-user device (phone) and the IPv4 internet.
>
Could well be the case.  My idea was that you could do it either way. 
You could have a DS-Lite gateway (Typical.  Likely built into the "cable
modem" or similar device), or in the case where no gateway is available,
a DS-Lite "client" (basically a virtual nic/tunnel driver) on the
machine would establish the tunnel and an IPv4 address itself.  But
perhaps this latter method was never intended?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5570 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100116/126f0f06/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list