Re: [dhcwg] [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>Huh? NAT64 can involves no host changes at all (other than not having IPv4 to
>succeed in network attachment, and as Lorenzo said, IPv4 literals in some ancien
>t protocols).

I don't know if you consider http://192.0.2.1/ an ancient protocol, but this
is typically something that breaks with NAT64.

However, NAT64 is also a complete violation of core IPv6 standards.
1) RFC 4443 (ICMP6) Section 2.4, (c):
    Every ICMPv6 error message (type < 128) MUST include as much of
    the IPv6 offending (invoking) packet (the packet that caused the
    error) as possible without making the error message packet exceed
    the minimum IPv6 MTU [IPv6].

  There is no way an NAT64 gateway is going to make that work. Worse, RFC 4884
  put funny bits at ofset 128. 

2) IPv4 links can have MTUs lower than 1280. Again this is incompatible with 
   IPv6 specifications.

Then, if you say no host changes required, you imply the use of DNS64, which is
incompatible with a DNSSEC validating resolver on the host (unless that 
resolver is aware of the presence of DNS64).