Re: [Idr] MP-BGP Extension and the Procedures for IPv4/IPv6 Mapping Advertisement

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chongfeng,

My question was not about this specific IDR draft or the proposal in
draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay - these are new proposals.

My question was for "Double-translation is a popular way for transition to
IPv6-only, it has been even widely supported by terminal OS, such as IOS
and Android. Double translation have deployed in the mobile networks of
multiple operators.  In this case, double-translation is more suitable than
encapsulation."

And my question was: The wide deployment that you refer to seems to be on
end hosts and not routers which is what is the current proposal. Is that
correct? Also, can you clarify if these "wide deployments" translate from
IPv4 Addr A --> IPv6 Addr B --> IPv4 Addr A? Or are they more like IPv4
Addr A --> IPv6 Addr B --> IPv4 Addr C (more like NAT)?

Thanks,
Ketan

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 5:29 AM Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
> Thank you for your question, please see my feedback inline:
>
> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> *Date:* 2024-03-19 07:22
> *To:* Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>
> *CC:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>;
> idr <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] MP-BGP Extension and the Procedures for IPv4/IPv6
> Mapping Advertisement
> Hi Chongfeng,
>
> You've responded (and I am trimming to focus on that point):
>
>
>>
>> [Chongfeng]:  Double-translation is a popular way for transition to
>> IPv6-only, it has been even widely supported by terminal OS, such as IOS
>> and Android. Double translation have deployed in the mobile networks of
>> multiple operators.  In this case, double-translation is more suitable than
>> encapsulation.  From the perspective of network operation, the extension to
>> BGP should cover both cases, not only encapsulation, but also translation.
>>
>>
> The wide deployment that you refer to seems to be on end hosts and not
> routers which is what is the current proposal. Is that correct? Also, can
> you clarify if these "wide deployments" translate from IPv4 Addr A --> IPv6
> Addr B --> IPv4 Addr A? Or are they more like IPv4 Addr A --> IPv6 Addr B
> --> IPv4 Addr C (more like NAT)?
>
> [Chongfeng]: This is related to the integration of IPv6-only access with
> IPv6-only transit, UE/CPE supports only translation, if the transit core
> support translation at the data layer, the IPv6-only data path can span
> from UE/CPE to egress PE router for end-to-end IPv4 service delivery. You
> can find the illustration in section 7of
> draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-04. In IPv6-only access,
> there is no IPv4 address allocated to UE/CPE, and the address change in the
> transit core should follow IPv4 Addr A--> IPv6 Addr B--> IPv4 Addr A, if I
> under your question correctly.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> Best regards
> Chongfeng
>
>
>
>>