Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 18 November 2017 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EF1126B6E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:40:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pPAZdverlpCL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:40:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 016A51200FC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:40:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id t69so4355228pfg.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:40:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Vbo3+NSjxJoUdjRuhZvIqCsoZ8W73jwJRAD9jWeQnmU=; b=mNjc51j+XNgm1djilvpH6iYUBDiWHD/Gv/yaGq1mA70NFCZ5kzX3sYE2DKNZHSsw6o wp5dXfC49qMDu4LDXzLiLwUGgR0Yo1Z3OZLgmgg6fHEWPIgYkI9rQHEMUg+TcUnMKScW V/fa3CMJN6Wl6FvvWTYDH/YeFB28xTqo46MZyeFVrTc8khSgliW9fRW2My3kVhdPuqrI 2VI2bfGRKe/8czzo++lWmOOxVMQEuWr3P94tJoQG8TlklVxnnQccx1K6TzDpl8zki6CG jQZhWdxJv7yyE4UwBnA1389s/p5ZCrGMU9dTXNuhvwFrxp5CckZ/15dl/drLJTIwFb4o xjTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Vbo3+NSjxJoUdjRuhZvIqCsoZ8W73jwJRAD9jWeQnmU=; b=SYB1T9eKkqJgVT0r90NSyZyOB0ANcYWgFxWGsNK2NiiHRTSBBm4Tth0aJoTpal8PTb 24cYOTqcNASCSuWEGsLeypbivD8oiGXtBkESMYnkfNVt4bJZLi1mweLfyGw5QXxHz7Rr 170s+U0hJB5hW9kMeMPUpOC/+fPO1Xru9wERVdh6wFUYsNXQvMGLVHMmiVGC9XlAzSsG MQRAcb1k++w8ZmIc2yMNhwTXff44D1QvsePwhHVFrepMIyWkSOiP4YrbS1iJvRywYlTt HtB+0A9OS8kMrnClMHHFUdBe0XNbQJGAEMnNbnVMXyJpaePty85dCvfvPwMFQxVZHU3C HaRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5GAed2W8RuYgdd6M8h/Ghw5dpO292T9J2wpyism4/ELF9j6MSm 54XzMkUiLAKZkkin2yeQaqAnbQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMY11RGsuY1CBXmgBgOJNfAhs/eQPAAyQviN4KLpXdxsK6htLPrZDjkGGDvwd64NlaVhYtoaqQ==
X-Received: by 10.101.81.10 with SMTP id f10mr8842308pgq.148.1511034025329; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q16sm11623903pgq.79.2017.11.18.11.40.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <m1eEHPS-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <59B0BEC0-D791-4D75-906C-84C5E423291B@employees.org> <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com> <CAFU7BARaJHKOyrD1KAeorbYQwgsmxBLk1QELH+wZ4=HDCP1q-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <8470b00f-ecc5-0a63-fd8f-a4e2f65a005d@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:40:18 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BARaJHKOyrD1KAeorbYQwgsmxBLk1QELH+wZ4=HDCP1q-w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2RuVJsdG8QABHj3BiGmJxGZa40o>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 19:40:27 -0000

On 18/11/2017 22:22, Jen Linkova wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:07 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
>> IMHO the optimal solution is:
>> - the network SHOULD provide a host with NAT64 prefix information in RA;
>>
>>
>> Disagree. If the network has NAT64, then it should deploy RFC 7225.
> 
> Even if does not deploy it for NAT44? Do we really want to make NAT64
> deployments more complicated than
> just replacing NAT44 with NAT64? ;)

IMHO, no. Also, I don't believe that "should deploy RFC 7225" is
documented anywhere as a normative requirement.

To be clear: I used ietf-nat64 all week, and all the things that didn't work
are not an issue on a dual-stack network. From the host's point of view,
dual-stack is definitively superior, IMNSHO, and nothing is going to
change that. NAT64 is second-best. It may appear to be cheaper for some
operators in some scenarios, that's all. 

    Brian