IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DNS64, DANE and DPRIV

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Sat, 06 December 2014 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D463D1A1BC8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:58:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FC9ikVu6JUBv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743961A1BC5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF92E3493BE; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:58:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C56160067; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 00:02:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 315AA160035; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 00:02:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E062509740; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 10:58:36 +1100 (EST)
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <CAMm+Lwj+KjTVka1M7O+tsp76C_OCGR0bWKH_k5UrZXSYZrF+GA@mail.gmail.com> <20141206213552.2777C2508A06@rock.dv.isc.org> <m24mt8fmkk.wl%randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: DNS64, DANE and DPRIV
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 07 Dec 2014 07:19:39 +0900." <m24mt8fmkk.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:58:36 +1100
Message-Id: <20141206235836.92E062509740@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SIcGSLNwd4O9UnRPdfZLW2Oi4eY
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:58:42 -0000

In message <m24mt8fmkk.wl%randy@psg.com>, Randy Bush writes:
> > DNS64 is not the only solution for a ISP to go IPv6 only.
> 
> 64 was motivated by the need for a 6-only *enterprise*
> 
> > DS-Lite allows that
> 
> ds-lite is the ideal solution.  it combines nat in the core with (for
> most providers) fork-lift of the cpe.  what could be wrong with that?
 
And DNS64 requires NAT in the core and a fork lift upgrade of the
CPE to support IPv6.

> randy
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email