Re: [BEHAVE] comments on draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Dan
> Wing
> 发送时间: 2010年3月9日 2:31
> 收件人: 'Cameron Byrne'
> 抄送: draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix@tools.ietf.org; 'behave'
> 主题: Re: [BEHAVE] comments on draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 10:13 AM
> > To: Dan Wing
> > Cc: behave; draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] comments on
> > draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > Hi.  I just read draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00 and
> > had some comments,
> > >
> > > * I am unclear on the motivation.  The content provider has
> > deployed a NAT64
> > > because the content provider was unable, or unwilling, to
> > put native IPv6 on
> > > the front-end server.  The content provider wants to create
> > more work in the
> > > IPv6 routing infrastructure (through the new 64::/16
> > prefix) and RIRs so that
> > > the NAT64 is used by IPv6-only devices and not used by
> > dual-stack devices.
> > >
> > > * To be effective, I believe that this I-D requires the
> > dual-stack clients to
> > > modify their RFC3484 IPv6 address preferences to prefer
> > IPv4 over 64::/16.
> > > These dual-stack clients are on remote networks which
> > aren't under the control
> > > of the content provider (the content provider that has
> > deployed the NAT64 and
> > > is using the 64::/16 prefix).  But the I-D does not mention
> > that requirement,
> > > so perhaps I am misunderstanding.  Can this be clarified in
> > email and in the
> > > draft?
> >
> > Dan, what you are saying in the above point makes sense to me and we
> > can clarify the scenario in the in the I-D.
> >
> > The genesis of the ideas arose from this thread, where we talk about
> > weak and strong WKP as well as a network hosting many NAT64 systems
> > while having the beneficial properties of WKP -- where the host knows
> > it is communicating via a NAT64 translator.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg07818.html
> 
> If I'm operating a bunch of dual-stack hosts, though, I may not
> have an incentive to avoid the content provider's NAT64.
> 
> For example, the diagram in the I-D shows:
> 
>                        +-----------------+
>                        |                 |
>       +------------+   | IPv6 Internet   |  +-----+  +------------+
>       | Dual-stack +---+                 +--+NAT64+--+ IPv4-only  |
>       |            |   +-----------------+  +-----+  |            |
>       |   +----+   |                                 |   +----+   |
>       |   | H1 |   |   +-----------------+           |   | H2 |   |
>       |   +----+   +---+                 +-----------+   +----+   |
>       +------------+   | IPv4 Internet   |           +------------+
>                        |                 |
>                        +-----------------+
> 
> but let's imagine, instead, the network with the dual-stack
> hosts is behind a NAPT44, as shown in this diagram:
> 
> 
>                       +-------------+
>                       |             |
> +----------+          |IPv6 Internet| +-----+ +---------+
> |Dual-stack+----------+             +-+NAT64+-+IPv4-only|
> |          |          +-------------+ +-----+ |         |
> |  +----+  |                                  |  +----+ |
> |  | H1 |  | +------+ +-------------+         |  | H2 | |
> |  +----+  +-+NAPT44+-+             +---------+  +----+ |
> +----------+ +------+ |IPv4 Internet|         +---------+
>                       |             |
>                       +-------------+
> 
> Such a client network lacks an incentive to avoid the content
> provider's NAT64.

Hi Dan,

The following is quoted from draft-wing-behave-dns64-config-02:

      Note:  If both a NAT44 and NAT64 are deployed on the same network,
      roughly the same inefficiency occurs (that is, NAT state is
      created).  However, it is generally considered better to perform
      NAT44 than NAT64, because NAT64 translates between IP address
      families which can have side effects (e.g., FTP).

Does the quoted text make sense in the above scenario?

Best wishes,
Xiaohu

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