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

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:26:18PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I'm confused how it can be a good thing to use a different way to connect
> to a RIPE meeting network then the one you would use at the office or at
> home. 

Having "different network types" is, in itself, not a useful thing.

But it's reality - you'll end up being in any sort of network when
travelling.

So exposing *network people* to the possible breakages of "oh, if I
have no native IPv4 on wifi anymore, my multi-million VPN solution 
stops working" is a useful information.  And much more useful than
having your CEO call you at 3am from a wifi network in China with
"I HAVE ONLY IPV6 HERE AND VPN IS NOT WORKING! GO FIX! NOW!".

IPv6 does break things.  They all need fixing.

To *know* what is broken in the gazillion of different combinations
of operating systems, vendors, applications needs exposure.  Leaving
comfort zone.

[..]
> I'm very happy with dual stack. It is a technology that just works and
> doesn't need fixes on the host. Network configuration on hosts is 
> complicated enough. We don't need more options.

Dual-stack is a pile of shit.  It requires dual the amount of monitoring
to *ensure* both protocols are both working correctly, dual the amount
of firewall rules, etc.  

Worse, things like HE hide breakage in one protocol, so you "assume" 
you have a working dual-stack network, "because nobody is complaining"...

Core networks need to run dual-stack for a long time to go, and it is
a pain in the behind.  Dual monitoring, dual routing protocols, dual
filtering, ...  (unless you do tricks with "two AFIs over one session",
but peers usually do not support that).

Inside edge networks, single-stack is the only thing that really makes
sense - either hide in an IPv4 island behind a dual-stack application
gateway, or go IPv6-only with DNS64/NAT64 (and possibly 464xlat) or
with an dual-stack ALG to reach those IPv4-only services out there.

[..]
> > 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?
> 
> There is quite a lot of NAT64 in mobile networks. As far as I know there
> is very little NAT64 on wifi. But I might be wrong. Any pointers to 
> wide scale NAT64 on wifi?

Troopers runs their main conference wifi with NAT64.  If I'm not
mistaken, so does FOSDEM.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191009/001bc1e6/attachment.sig>