Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Lee Howard <> Mon, 20 November 2017 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D38812EAB3 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:18:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.349
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsPIPd3BsQrw for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:18:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4C71241FC for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:18:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id vAKLIqND020168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:18:52 -0500
Received: (qmail 12876 invoked by uid 0); 20 Nov 2017 21:18:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 20 Nov 2017 21:18:51 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:18:45 +0800
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
From: Lee Howard <>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <>, Jen Linkova <>
CC: 6man WG <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
References: <> <> <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07C625@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D481@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D534@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D63D@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:18:57 -0000

On 11/21/17, 4:59 AM, "ipv6 on behalf of Manfredi, Albert E"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jen Linkova []
>> People from the real world is coming to IETF saying 'we are deploying
>> Ipv6-only hosts' [1] [2]
>Okay. So, people can follow whatever approach they prefer, but my first
>reaction was that switching over to IPv6 *by location* seems an odd way
>to go about it. If it were up to me, I'd say not to use that model. It's
>more a matter of end to end functions used, by hosts in a given subnet.
>If a given subnet can demonstrate that all of its hosts' needs can be
>met, end to end, with IPv6 only, then great. Shut off IPv4 in that one
>subnet. But "end to end" sessions are frequently not confined to one
>location, and it also seems unlikely that all hosts in all subnets, in a
>given location, have the same needs.

Not sure what your goal is here in complaining about someone else’s
deployment model.

A building on a campus probably is a single subnet. Not sure how you’d
find out what doesn’t work over IPv6 (plus NAT64) without trying it.

>The hotel model that Brian offered seems to reflect what should be the
>most generic reality. Diverse devices, diverse needs, location isn't the
>primary factor to be considered. I realize that there's some sort of
>management appeal, to make this a "by location" issue.

Hospitality networks have specific engineering requirements which may not
be generalizable. For one, they have different users and devices daily:
unlike an enterprise network, devices that tech support fixes don’t stay
fixed (new devices come in). A support call to an ISP subscriber might
cost the same or less than a hotel support call, but if the call is
repeated every time there’s a new user, the hotel has a very different
problem. Plus, of course, hotels are pretty much all Wi-Fi, which may not
be true of enterprise or campus or data center networks.


>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>Administrative Requests: