Re: Are IPv6-only Internet services viable today?

[Jim Burwell <jimb () jsbc cc>]

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 () jsbc cc
> > > <mailto:jimb () 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?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature