Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching?
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 03 May 2011 05:30 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E00DE06F1; Mon, 2 May 2011 22:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TUQlv-ZCjZWD; Mon, 2 May 2011 22:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35809E069C; Mon, 2 May 2011 22:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=2613; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304400613; x=1305610213; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iTM0l96rYG+m3gGEc99R2t8aDOGl6cEPSmIgCR32HG8=; b=BdWoPHyWKBStKd7KJMdiEoXnDAM3wGzv1d8Txh0rzp4AnmOS+xOKoia/ DdtrDDhkYQj2N7++xMWqyzjFV7Doa43B+UxgHay+1ZARQu2fENAQsHSYa b1CWPoU3MHpWXBKl/qtLdnRyz5dMZqvPdBPDtmmau8n9TQLg5beI1hphv s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjsBAMORv02rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbACEUZM1gWOMJ3eIcp8qi2WQaoEqg1WBAQSGDpcz
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,307,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="307040752"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2011 05:29:17 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p435TH6m007320; Tue, 3 May 2011 05:29:17 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Behcet Sarikaya' <sarikaya@ieee.org>, 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' <iljitsch@muada.com>, 'buptnoc' <buptnoc@gmail.com>
References: <4DB95962.5090407@gmail.com> <EA2B6487-5506-4FC0-9124-61CF6AD86F82@muada.com> <192669.64705.qm@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <192669.64705.qm@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 22:29:17 -0700
Message-ID: <01df01cc0953$0c23a560$246af020$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcwI3C+FjgR2wVypQceDg2U5kI+1sQAdXdQw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching?
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 05:30:14 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:18 AM > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; buptnoc > Cc: softwires@ietf.org; behave@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching? > > This is good point. > But maybe this should be discussed in Softwires list. NAT46 is in scope of BEHAVE, and is not in scope of SOFTWIRE. The BEHAVE charter is clear on that. But I have not yet understood how or where we would see an IPv4-only client needing to access an IPv6-only server (that is, a server with only an IPv6 address). -d > Regards, > > Behcet > > > On 28 apr 2011, at 14:11, buptnoc wrote: > > > > > > As described in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10#section- > 2.4 , we > >need nat46 translator. > > > > > But, do we really need this scenario?Is it worth to deploy > this > >scenario? > > > > > In fact, this scenario appears when we have v4-only client and > v6-only > >servers > > > > My opinion is: no, this is not worth the trouble. We know that NAT46 > is a hard > >problem, and it's unlikely a solution would be very robust. Because > of lack of > >IPv4 addresses, a relatively small pool of v4 addresses would have to > map to > >all possible v6 addresses, which means that the mappings have to be > highly > >dynamic. But addresses are cached in many places, including often for > a long > >time in applications. Having different applications react differently > to NAT46 > >would be a big deployment problem. > > > > I would recommend (apart from upgrading to IPv6) deploying HTTP and > HTTPS > >proxies, as those will allow HTTP and HTTPS from IPv4-only clients to > IPv6-only > >servers (or the other way around!) and in principle, it's possible to > modify > >any TCP-based application to work through an HTTPS proxy, as those > are > >basically TCP relays. > > > > It should be possible to make an automatic proxy configuration so > that a > >browser only uses the proxy to reach IPv6 destinations and connects > to IPv4 > >destinations directly. However, I haven't tried this myself yet. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Behave mailing list > > Behave@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > Behave@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … buptnoc
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … GangChen
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Behcet Sarikaya
- [BEHAVE] NAT464 of sorts, was: Re: Is nat46 worth… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] NAT464 of sorts, was: Re: Is nat46 w… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … buptnoc
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth … Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] Is nat46 worth researching? Xing Li