IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching？

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 02 May 2011 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.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 C2A8EE077E for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.507, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
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 I8fMFiy7LaTH for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43DCE06B1 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so2213088ewy.31 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kCYQkpnJHQhrdbfGZf4IB1/LXrX1lV8cOfIdUoUm5MA=; b=CZFEP1ZISpkuOgdFfzQfIVsaGDGyw2aSDWCGWzY/kg0pXDWhOIru6Jl+eQXvK0eOXz oGQDOV9F4fVj0oLAVFcwd6+a52IKHJ4iFvFZ3DeLjG8a2a68TWzm5hn/77/pMRNGomjZ vPoy4s077WyehcbP2cb2eD/KuQCr2XOs2Tbys=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cg5f7BueMjViomKvI5QZvgl5kRJtEw6xvIWlICz4gGnFRm1waln1be2+nYBWIDc2hL 836s77gJr8a7Kk0gRxI2JyBA8GrFUQh+MNgWEzei//NU2rWLXv7Z4J/y6UNKhCZMxj7s X2KwF360uypc5YvIka8Xod8WuA8OjHo++DhC4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.127.76 with SMTP id c52mr1528262eei.57.1304356914701; Mon, 02 May 2011 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.45.80 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EA2B6487-5506-4FC0-9124-61CF6AD86F82@muada.com>
References: <4DB95962.5090407@gmail.com> <EA2B6487-5506-4FC0-9124-61CF6AD86F82@muada.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:21:54 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinBQQ2rfJKFUStc=G04roHpPxQSLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: buptnoc <buptnoc@gmail.com>, 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: Mon, 02 May 2011 17:21:56 -0000

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> 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 believe NAT46 has a great deal of utility on the end host where an
ipv4-only application or ipv4-literal is referenced on a node that
only has ipv6 connectivity.  This has already been demonstrated here
http://code.google.com/p/n900ipv6/wiki/Nat64D

Some protocols don't work in the inevitable and required IPv6-only
near term future.

NAT46 is required to make the NAT464 use case work and thus allows
networks operators, especially in mobile, to move forward.

> 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.
>

Notice that the list of applications that are fixed by the above N900
code are MSN messenger, Skype, as well as ipv4-literals.

Cameron

> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email