Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 08E70129454 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:52:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 hSsmwuZzV9FI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:52:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (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 6B921127843 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:52:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id q1so13790432ywh.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:52:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0zOUq39kqdyfklfc5gFMo11i1TUeNty1TijzvrzzHM4=; b=hKM9VtxuStUzRer/FWK6x0a6A7iPKA/VcilSAPU5OVImRQxz2V3IkBsxQrsOBRmjCl kvC03TmVndsEpdiyjhTx9T4AVv2fpXGfs7ypjY1ujTS5K9+kxZvYzluYep632+X+N6V0 IavvT3TD8oPGRidcaZrGQg2LboO4ecBNQOI55ECblezDzjQebhm49IT+lKQZ1mfGKH0N eZq1XQyxmN1TPOzT14KPV45q3CxnCslMh68rHZJMiUGlMxbVswqZRtp4crLkhZL+ogK0 OSOYTzPkBIpPf1zxDC2joCD89p+Sv4PtwH7q5d4dxuxbLfzDTEDb+xmou3z9YEOS00m+ BGDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0zOUq39kqdyfklfc5gFMo11i1TUeNty1TijzvrzzHM4=; b=n5FY6zgpELHxcW4TfWQ908q82QL3cqwhkWmU3LeCQZIE1WSZmx1HiDZQ246AzDNOkK thdj/Q9ejwNIZCOPPtcQPIKaRcINi7E+XLTlTh0z6WZQXKvL5FYup+x1vv0y75LAF7SB y1lzpZCDKfjLNADkHvv7gskxKrlH5Q6/IUGzEsG4jjNlH3CRu7ZJ8H7PIp25GH5cxFTh GV4gCTlhKirqKzevS/dOKWndYPuAA69xamWB8OXflJrExlcqHYjTn1YRh6EzDtCjDR3z RmgvCV3XERWeWQk7UYzxNmY7W2Tc+LXpLnDR5xZc3AWmYxuerjgea3RbopTQA1O3ueNe pfsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4rFQTKpknFKDfQlfynrh2qLLFmhLi6+KC98VqL5DORwg+JqHkA J/RDSIvpp6gnODJzCes4nPfKtqRTEqiCfw8XnOwFjg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaRthMBkjXftzmYHMgDJlPN83Sc1OrdmCaSYwo1N64AO9p8UquLeL5zwTPW+WoRMoRu+14kqTrta6S1y/dhynM=
X-Received: by 10.129.123.9 with SMTP id w9mr6174905ywc.471.1510588359659; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:52:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6755862C-AA12-45B4-98B8-EF6D9F90898B@employees.org> <6445323B-FFE4-4A3E-9EFB-9F4D05BED0D5@jisc.ac.uk> <48E76543-3DD4-43E8-9B50-5CC4D9D76A2F@cisco.com> <7C928B66-8D07-42A0-9168-617E2978227F@jisc.ac.uk> <CAD6AjGQdenKMxQ6KBeBGzTu6fAtR9d_x7HuSPYVATcKEOdmNUQ@mail.gmail.com> <D4AB0373-B105-4E13-B4CA-94FCDACCEBA6@employees.org> <CAD6AjGSzXPEN1Snu9=Acnc6xggJ3=9T4Zks1H=+pfNOyt-qaoQ@mail.gmail.com> <E5C5DFDE-DB7D-41BC-A197-7329C2FEE2F1@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <E5C5DFDE-DB7D-41BC-A197-7329C2FEE2F1@employees.org>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:52:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQuQT_=zvaY1PvOi-FCN7D08DqTn-=r=9NXNYOt+=R59g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114948489454cb055ddf426e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4yNEVJZ8wj8Qj7jPvhwVFaBk9P0>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:52:42 -0000

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:45 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>; wrote:

> Cameron,
>
> >
> > Yes, the first 2 are not objectionable and are already well know,
> documented and deployed as part of various transition solutions.
> >
> > My feeling is the plane is already in flight and operators do not need
> any additional guidance / confusion from the ietf.
> >
> > In short, this is a solved problem and the industry needs more stability
> and less tweaking .... especially in something fundamental like the node
> definition
>
> This isn't guidance to operators, this is guidance to implementors.


Ok, then i would proceed with caution and weigh heavily the feedback from
implementors



> As we found during the hackathon, multiple stacks do lack the first two.
> And as a consequence applications break.
> Now you can argue if we want to put the burden of this on applications or
> on the host stack. If the former the node requirements document might not
> be the right place.
>
> >
> >
> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png
>
> I thought this deployment provided dual stack service? 464XLAT, no?


My definition of ipv6-only includes 464xlat

To your point, a large percentage of the tmobile case is 6555bis with
nat64/dns64.

Based on the picture, you can probably guess when 6555bis was implemented
ands its relative impact



> That's a different problem than what we are trying to solve here.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>