Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 C8A06128BC8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:04:25 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=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=google.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 3AZEHWpwM061 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 B471F126E01 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id d28so18119145pfe.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:04:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=95eISPdPWciD4DLsANlV1gTONCxYOadbJi9kd9uWqqA=; b=JJMLlW9L+BfjG/C6uiTZlcb3DBRbWWylrDAbaVzGDOyAmtXw6Ft2GyQdoLaFnix9uu CSt6Vlqi6J8SdhhUWUk9sL3AzVKSiwVz4nopvMsVwF0PcANatG52iTEvEMWZftcHPtsn 4NxXqxTo1YrDkseJt8DOdNLd2nc+bvRdrdA/bMMSpqOtK7J8+JvWrMXQ4AqYGLwYP7+L b3PcJwhah7F+56f4UMJ4VyBdGolQxi/nMcJ7hwDdiCCe2xusEwy+v4lZVUfCZ+JL2Wth NTXsw9WPB+xqbRnykhArdqs41/+LIiQOR5nrV3wL75gxg/krxXl9bUX1zIudOT2FEt0k gY8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=95eISPdPWciD4DLsANlV1gTONCxYOadbJi9kd9uWqqA=; b=S8XEkU4gCnqoSEoavaz1vqKpJAHeNVb0BXwfX1ipRn1artL6TqXjJ2oUjU81Zw4/X9 QSi88fbkz+s04Z8UCLplaCiW9+zKxf3P8NtXIqzNwZeSzQzp1+O181axbtrJ3OAyUIt6 dIIivWcDz1iwUFY8U2/EOtdFzIbIUtziE5c5ASAyuHjZygeSYCiswY0/szx9gKs+UpjA J5eJujHj2UJvaajwsyLjCin99+YKnFZh5F87nEw8Wg7KPCYGgl8hOE3zS8xbumShLfvK qYbysxNmJlsa3BMqRkweIXI5yTUE9kVp2L5bHs5Xe+133mWbm693YbVYzY/JeIFnom8E g7gw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4VeynBtKD2ccgiK4YrL0NzgDSy+ejK4qMeGweRllAPH8afyP05 6u1z+DObd5/kmPgmth82FwF5kQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYcO6uuyTTTOxnJlSBOa8gtpIGb0B3kBB6G3Zv8rhYfNTJGN8AHs2QQp3qTXZI1VwS3NdIEHg==
X-Received: by 10.99.67.195 with SMTP id q186mr16602301pga.186.1510787063056; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::10e7:10:788d:282:9de1:e7b9? ([2620:0:10e7:10:788d:282:9de1:e7b9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n22sm41961962pfa.161.2017.11.15.15.04.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:04:22 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <16B61573-E233-40ED-8A22-CD145EBB8F98@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_086B4970-4283-4220-AD7C-9B41CFAEE1C3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:04:21 -0800
In-Reply-To: <5D9D33A8-88F0-4758-84FA-BCB364E8013F@employees.org>
Cc: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4BRYKzIlPVyr50lZ3lL7EZ5cUec>
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 23:04:26 -0000

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.

> 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>>