Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on draft-bagnulo-behave-nat64-00

On 2008-07-21 08:33, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:
>> On 20 jul 2008, at 21:42, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'd be interested in learning more about what Iljitsch
>>> mentioned about current devices not allowing v4-mapped addresses on
>>> the wire. As Dave mentioned, RFC 2765 uses them, and a quick test on
>>> the Linux box that I'm writing this e-mail on shows that I can use
>>> these addresses on the wire. Can you be more specific about what
>>> problems you expect, and where, Iljitsch?
>>
>> IIRC, Itojun was _extremely_ vocal about not allowing these on the
>> wire, and I think he got some traction in this area from at least some
>> of the *BSD people.
>>
>> Also, stacks implement special case logic for these addresses as they
>> must result in IPv4 packets when the host is dual stack, I don't know
>> if this logic is still applied if the host is running IPv6-only, or
>> normal IPv6 packets are generated.
>>
> see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02

Exactly. This prefix has implied semantics, and worse, it has
*ambiguous* implied semantics: one version for NAT[-PT|64]
and another for the dual-stack socket API.

For NAT64, I think we're reducing topological flexibility by using this
prefix, as well as ignoring the ambiguity. If an arbitrary prefix is
allowed, the NAT64 doesn't have to be in the same administrative domain
as the host.

I suggest therefore having a default prefix plus the option to discover
or configure an alternative.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave