Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard

[Hui Deng <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan

inline please,


> I believe the objection is against "non-deterministic translation",
> rather than stateful versus stateless.  By non-deterministic, I mean
> that the subscriber's equipment (e.g., CPE) cannot determine the
> mapping it will have on the Internet.  A+P mechanisms are
>
 Could you help be more elaboration on CPE can't determine the ampping?


> deterministic (including 4rd, Dual-IVI, and draft-ymbk-aplus-p).
>
By the way, I would say you are missing one early draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation-00
which is align with 4rd  about 4v6 translation which has been contributed by
major operators which is also align with NAT64 deployment.

-Hui



>
> A stateful CGN, as commonly deployed, is not deterministic.
>
> However -- and this is my point in this email -- a stateful CGN
> can be configured and deployed so that it deterministically maps
> traffic.  That is, it can function very much like A+P/4rd/Dual-IVI
> so that port "N" from subscriber "A" is always mapped to public
> port "Z" on IPv4 address "Y".  We could have the CPE know about
> that fixed mapping using the same DHCP options that A+P/4rd/
> Dual-IVI would use, or use PCP, or use some other protocol.
>
> -d
>
> > I would assume softwires follows these same IETF guidelines and
> > therefore is
> > now focusing solely on stateless approaches(?). If the IETF opinion has
> > changed so that also stateful double translation solutions are now ok
> > for
> > IETF, then that should perhaps be reflected in this document as well.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I did not have chance to go to softwires interim, but
> > please
> > let us know if the discussions there impact also the quoted
> > recommendation.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >       Teemu
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > Behalf Of ext Satoru Matsushima
> > > Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 06:51
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; Satoru Matsushima
> > > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt>
> > (Dual
> > > Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard
> > >
> > > The introduction in the draft says:
> > >
> > >
> > > >   IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for
> > > >    IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments
> > > >    utilizing double protocol translation.  Use of BIH together with
> > a
> > > >    NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180].
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This statement makes a strong obstacle when we develop stateless
> > solution
> > > with translation in softwires wg.
> > > I think that it is still remained a room to make decision whether
> > removing
> > the
> > > statement or remaining it.
> > > The discussion which we'll have in the softwires interim meeting
> > would be
> > > helpful to decide it.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > --satoru
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2011/08/31, at 22:53, The IESG wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The IESG has received a request from the Behavior Engineering for
> > > > Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following document:
> > > > - 'Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)'
> > > >  <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> > > >
> > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> > solicits
> > > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
> > the
> > > > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2011-09-14. Exceptionally, comments
> > may
> > > > be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> > > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> > > >
> > > > Abstract
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >   Bump-In-the-Host (BIH) is a host-based IPv4 to IPv6 protocol
> > > >   translation mechanism that allows a class of IPv4-only
> > applications
> > > >   that work through NATs to communicate with IPv6-only peers.  The
> > host
> > > >   on which applications are running may be connected to IPv6-only
> > or
> > > >   dual-stack access networks.  BIH hides IPv6 and makes the IPv4-
> > only
> > > >   applications think they are talking with IPv4 peers by local
> > > >   synthesis of IPv4 addresses.  This draft obsoletes RFC 2767 and
> > RFC
> > > >   3338.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The file can be obtained via
> > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/
> > > >
> > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Behave mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Behave mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>