IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [3gv6] [BEHAVE] FW: DNS Assignment for NAT64

Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> Wed, 06 January 2010 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: 3gv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 3gv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC6D28C15E for <3gv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:14:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.965
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uY8vXZgsHnH2 for <3gv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [67.195.15.168]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CC68828C161 for <3gv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 98364 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jan 2010 21:14:47 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1262812487; bh=8JSG9e7NEbI6gNLB1CxVarApNy6pInQgcXL787JFEyY=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gnJYnWYU+SmedgmvV3kgU1F0g31b4NFKE7KK13cxJLMfauBX62ISHySstOi03RAk53iiwNA/Tf7MipcjWa3qh5Uo11KporA31bbXIWnymqeUHRfQSQ0PqhNz4/2DbxyZxzyMmpR0jO/KpSp9f4zuvBQzkfmQtIwEg4wsEn18z7Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=M7hU6FMRyRXQmCSqp244c9hjIzwM+BPFH/PgoLAIGioEeGt3fhNTzOb3HN8HOBG9tZZpuR/7IsWEDD0sKOG3BPPMpAvUpubzsQuVcxpJ0s38bF978uLjcvCn41lr/TDlt+gxyNDUNBm9zDQkwDauuXmJA6k1Pem8n15RSwtHtYo=;
Message-ID: <772513.98030.qm@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: q3R6kbMVM1k64KpX195WODbtFEB9t_RwqHFnGjecqHm0MPobO5_zuSB.SadHy64cE3CM6H9DAex.yq5XGMfLfaUJaYucgxcSQjNCtYXFBYpk27_uGc2mw9lBYAbgwUlcn0oDp3JT7eIBtOvlqVLm.yqkbxNmzHXCkJgoR2mKhA_cPBSFPLHHdBqQ9rfAXgjnqXaMhtDm4HgvZA9T_vBcbnLGGNogEKoyZKBz3TXQUytmfAfS1GV1qSR7OnB02UAg6MJeCYwqvu9MqmJP3.WwqXi1WDXr3ruHr.lzXtiXPJvG.nOEwQrCvUkR.V.zgYXF2qkYWpr5MlCEElhkU0yWrozTnaZehENMZGqP0Kl5
Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:14:47 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/240.3 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964
References: <C76A4F56.2EDF%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:14:47 -0800
From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, cb.list6@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <C76A4F56.2EDF%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: B.Smith@bell.ca, 3gv6@ietf.org, behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [3gv6] [BEHAVE] FW: DNS Assignment for NAT64
X-BeenThere: 3gv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
List-Id: "This mailing list is intended for discussions relating to the use of IPv6 in cellular networks." <3gv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/3gv6>, <mailto:3gv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/3gv6>
List-Post: <mailto:3gv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:3gv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/3gv6>, <mailto:3gv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:14:53 -0000

Hi Raj,



----- Original Message ----
> From: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
> To: cb.list6@gmail.com
> Cc: behave@ietf.org; B.Smith@bell.ca; 3gv6@ietf.org
> Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 2:31:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [3gv6] [BEHAVE] FW: DNS Assignment for NAT64
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/6/10 2:15 PM, "ext Cameron Byrne" wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:53 AM,  wrote:
> >>
> >> Inline:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/6/10 12:29 PM, "lebbatdot@cogeco.ca" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Raj
> >>>
> >>> Not sure I understand you.
> >>> Going back to my initial concern.
> >>>
> >>> Dual stack IPv4/6 is the recomended approach at the moment for 3GPP (and
> >>> other networks.
> >>>
> >>> At some point in time there will be IPv6 only devices.
> >>
> >> Key word here being "At some point"... Worrying about the scenario when we
> >> have IPv6 only devices at the moment is premature. DS devices will be the
> >> norm for a long time.
> >
> > This is not a correct statement.  Many mobile operators have exhausted
> > public and private IPv4 addresses.
> 
> I agree that many operators may not have large public IPv4 address pools.
> And that is a concern. But what do you mean by operators having exhausted
> private IPv4 addresses?
> 
> > With machine to machine, the problem becomes worse.
> 
> Sure. If the concern is w.r.t M2M, I don't see why these would not just use
> IPv6. It is a given that M2M and similar solutions will require large number
> of IP addresses. Given that there is no legacy to worry about, why not just
> run these over IPv6. The 3GPP network is already capable of assigning IPv6
> prefixes.
> 
> > So, IPv6-only will likely be a primary
> > mass-market services with NAT64 in the next few years.
> 
> Maybe. I sure hope so :)

I guess you are concurring with IPv6-only part.

For NAT64, I was reading Wassim & Charlie's draft (draft-haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful) which describes some problems associated with NAT64 for the mobile nodes that use Mobile IPv6.

I think that synthetic addresses create problems in case the nodes are mobile and in this list all nodes are mobile :).


...snipped the rest as it became huge.

Regards,

Behcet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email