IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 23:36 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 3F5E4127011 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:36:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 WLqZMZMKXTml for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (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 55BF0124319 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id n89so18164492pfk.11 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:36:37 -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=2igBElYXDlvYEbjDzYtlo21EA319tulbZv6ke6heL4s=; b=vIJP+wGLBN8Pit+OifNZzIDDTJb5ZY8mxb14wE6+t+95vmpKzIW19gwi0ojJPUPVOK 91q0FvppcNG9XVEgOVKyZFJk5CgeV1X9R3exZqmsr605hBe6vfhyUcOMDT4PBTB87GUP ipSZmGPk+6QfErLW/5kvuYBkNZ1sixc6Mb8WejsnlMH2ITxMj8dc9RAjma0U1nr6kjXD AHKw5pJB9N4aYWMitKHbM1uTOjd9EkNk3vRL+5++K3AapcZ9gVlaPAlaXdDS+enYuWj9 jVWBnlgCG7NwUZEzEC0cJsClss1nqZQiwzGK9SNmjRP5/Fal3KJy24V+M6D5ALTUySR4 AxSw==
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=2igBElYXDlvYEbjDzYtlo21EA319tulbZv6ke6heL4s=; b=GCXosRuK26YOwt9DNBEoZZCc1tQegUdcnnSwnr7C7kdZ/8sIuuDz8Wyi+ben5zZ+Ml PGweGzyDtWvDWqZf85kk9GhljB03fkqNFnwM1feUi6aZ3QXnQsXhyCTqWHLRkU+kXnPB 43MnPr+40n+8W1dlk4P9/VO9C72xx1QMGlWvhFkj8jn1/sYbpyMEBlfB1JnMBO9BLhu0 oLe2KJqFBE0YvMIrGJ4HRpqRtXBQceZCLycUkPMkrHlC6qRwz/RLkAktASty1sJWG5rV VNzg8i8hjuzsVISlJXksmUb9/9DgpCWMo9dXYbx6hOJOMh6pp0KxswC5LP+xvHhGNMCG wk5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5nTo8CZUZTTjt/U1D/vINdUT6ZUL2mcTdWtZXjCrqRGNrEczY/ 1+gZ7kSXfadjTLamNQrpa4Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMapVC1U9tnMj/Tnk4t7edkGdkb311nNXG/MhkIPESUnTDDfInjZsB2VK+ju7WOogR3FSW0Y9Q==
X-Received: by 10.84.235.75 with SMTP id g11mr17595906plt.155.1510788996861; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.132.82] ([101.100.166.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 69sm10450267pfj.28.2017.11.15.15.36.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:36:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
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> <5D9D33A8-88F0-4758-84FA-BCB364E8013F@employees.org> <16B61573-E233-40ED-8A22-CD145EBB8F98@google.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <6cb115a1-dec8-f31c-2865-7aca032bc771@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:36:37 +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: <16B61573-E233-40ED-8A22-CD145EBB8F98@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3SnvAcDjT56nslXXsuGZqR4sn3o>
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:36:39 -0000

On 16/11/2017 12:04, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 13:47, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> 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. Ye gods, this is the very last thing that should be jammed into RA messages.
>>
>> Do we really want PCP in IPv6?
> 
> If we have any kind of NAT, then we need PCP. Using NAT without PCP considered harmful. That goes for NAT64 and NAT66.

I have a more practical view. We can't assume that IPv6 hosts
grok DHCPv6, and we can't assume they grok PCP. We know that they
grok RAs, although of course they need an update to grok a new
option. So it seems to me that there isn't much doubt about the
need for an RA based solution.

    Brian

> 
>> Is PCP successful in IPv4?
> 
> Well, there was this: <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-pcp-5.pdf <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-pcp-5.pdf>>
> 
>> Or does it even work well with A+P based solutions?
> 
> 
> Designed expressly for it.
> 
> 
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.2.1 | Report a Bug | By Email