[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Hi Philip,

> In contrast NAT64 breaks existing systems in lots of subtle (and not so 
> subtle) ways. We cannot use NAT64 if we expect IPv4-only devices.

I would expect such devices mostly in a home network (gaming consoles etc). On a business meeting network like RIPE the number of IPv4-only devices is negligible.

> We cannot use DNS64 if we expect IPv4 literals or local DNSSEC validation.

I am sure the few of us who run local DNSSEC validation would love the opportunity to make it work. Finding IPv4 literals and fixing them is a feature :)

> The
> 464XLAT component is complicated did cause signficant operational problems
> in the past.
> 
> The net result is that with dual stack and NAT64 we now have two options of
> providing IPv6+IPv4 on a network. This is confusing to everybody who is not
> a network engineer.

This _is_ a RIPE meeting...

> Does dual stack require more IPv4 addresses? No, there are (of course multiple) 
> ways to provide dual stack on wifi without consuming additional public IPv4
> addresses. Plenty of ISPs provide consumers with dual stack wifi at home
> while maintaining an IPv6-only access network.

There is also more and more live deployment of IPv6-only with NAT64. I am honestly surprised by the back pressure in the RIPE community. If production networks can deploy this for millions of users, why should a small conference network with a huge number of network engineers be any problem?

Cheers,
Sander