RE: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?

[<david.binet () orange-ftgroup com>]

Hello,

Thank you for launching such useful discussions for operators. IPv6 introduction in mobile networks is certainly one 
major issue we have to consider for services and business development. 
As you stated, pressure on public and private IPv4 addresses is more and more important and we have to envisage IPv6 
deployment in following years to avoid issues you are presenting in your mail. 
To do so, I think we need to converge on IPv6 introduction scenarios and requirements before investgating technical 
solutions. For example, if one trigger for IPv6 introduction is the lack of IPv4 addresses, we can not rely on some 
dual stack connectivity for IPv6 introduction and the only perennial solution will consist in allocating IPv6 only 
prefixes to UE, allowing to identify them without any ambiguity at least. Once such option has been retained we have to 
consider valid scenarios. Do we want that these only-v6 connected terminal access to IPv4-only Internet and walled 
garden services ? Do we want that some (piece of) IPv4 applications on the terminal access to IPv4 applications with an 
IPv6-only connectivity ?...IPv6 only services may be relevant, at least in some further stages of IPv6 integration.
Once we have retained valid scenarios we have to deploy technical solutions to answer such needs. NAT64 for example may 
be needed but it has to be challenged with other solutions, including proxys solutions, DS-Lite, A+P...Actually NAT64 
that is a flavor of NAT44, already largely deployed in mobile networks, may be a solution hoping that applications will 
be more and more DS and that IPv6 native communications will grow. I think we have to avoid some technical solutions 
based on some several translation mechanisms for an IP session. 

David     

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6 () gmail com] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 14 janvier 2010 20:10
> À : nanog () nanog org
> Objet : Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?
>
> 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.
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about CGN / LSN /  and 
> other technologies around the corner.  In the mobile network 
> operator space, the lack of IPv4 addresses, both public and 
> RFC 1918, has been very real for a long time.  In North 
> America, mobile network operators have numbered subscribers 
> with BOGON space (obvious risk) and relaunched multiple 
> instances of RFC1918 space multiple times within their AS 
> (breaking end-to-end even within their own AS, which is a 
> problem with technologies increasingly moving towards 
> any-to-any SIP and IMS).  In any event, we can clearly state 
> the addressing issue has compromised both engineering and 
> business decisions in today's major mobile networks.  Both 
> scenarios above require tremendous NAT44 infrastructure.  
> And, future CGN technologies don't give me much comfort that 
> things will get better for the operator or the consumer.
> So, i have been looking more at offering IPv6-only service 
> with NAT64 translation to access the IPv4 Internet.  For the 
> network operator, the NAT44 and NAT64 aggregate network state 
> / number of translation is the same to start, and as more 
> native IPv6 content come on the NAT64 gracefully.  In fact, 
> given that Google is IPv6 now, and Google is content leader, 
> moving to NAT64 would actually be a reduction in NET NAT translations.
>
> IMHO, any dual-stack solution is not an adequate interim 
> solution since both private and public IPv4 addresses are 
> simply not available or will be soon completely exhausted.  
> Dual-stack will have a role in the future, just like public 
> IPv4 addresses have a role today.
> Dual-stack will be a required service for users with special 
> requirements (legacy IPv4 VPNs ....) , not average web and 
> email users that account for greater than ~80% of a mobile 
> operator's customer base.  I also want to stress that this 
> solution best fits new subscribers and devices, it will not 
> be a solution for Window 98 ...
> or Windows XP in fact. This draft is helpful in understanding 
> the issues as well as the IETF's work on NAT64
> draft-penno-behave-64-analysis-02
>
> Some folks in a lab decided to see what type of user 
> experience can be expected using NAT64 and DNS64 and 
> IPv6-only on the end system -- using commonly available 
> hardware and software that's available today, but different 
> from the kit used for the NANOG IPv6 hour.  In this case, 
> there is a NAT-PT box in place of NAT64, they used an open 
> source DNS64 implementation, and a standard WIndows 7 Starter 
> edition netbook.  I think the conclusion is that casual 
> Internet use, as a product, is possible today.  It is not 
> everything IPv4 offers today, but as IPv6 content and 
> applications come on-line the IPv6 capabilities will exceed 
> what IPv4 could do (no NAT for native flows).
>
> Screenshot video below, best viewed in HQ mode.  This is just 
> a data point with regard to functionality that is akin to 
> NAT64 / DNS64 that is available today.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/theipv6guy
*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************