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,

2011/9/27 Dan Wing <[e-mail]>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hui Deng [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
> > To: Dan Wing
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt>
> > (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard
> >
> > 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?
>
> It can't determine the public IP address and port of a mapping on the
> NAT64 (CGN), and it can't create a mapping on the NAT64 (CGN) -- because
> the CGN is going to make a dynamic mapping when it sees a UDP, TCP,
> or ICMP packet from the subscriber.
>
I don't see it matters


>
> >       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.
>
> Sorry.
>
> -d
>
>
> > -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:behave-
> > [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
> >
> >
>
>
>