IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 28 June 2019 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@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 6818212001B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 Tum8rKr0dNv3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (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 67E65120124 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id p13so4875698wru.10 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JHgi6JtrhMx2T9vcM5u2FvZ92cl1KqiBuBhwa1KLPXg=; b=NCJUHKmEIapzOi3tVs93p5doxembIjcb3yllpIsorzNAzcpXZ39DtMbn/I8aLf92At 6sQMkOeULUB13L6+zlZHQYTlBLcboTGLnEtO+B/Yg/1hEA60++2VtlniT4px4shUzQ8i kLRbJ5nmv0qg9c9tyXg3hxNXXuTQ5MVByy8l1ECX+1mherEuyNk82Wf8XWpntz81a3WE Xc45ooTpNO/qRx8HwVhUPXMUrLWKikp47CV8RrQEIJKKTYxIsesz9M3j/RGxEQw0u3f2 142el9MYzF3H0yRu4+CB1YZhkilfe7OEZKVToOx19Cr3IKfYr0Xm4Wyk/eHK0sylz2uT Q2NA==
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=JHgi6JtrhMx2T9vcM5u2FvZ92cl1KqiBuBhwa1KLPXg=; b=WZlTiejez1YJW2Jbf5LgBeg696C2Lm6Ogh3KFqAflqUFXEpRLrmU1puXOJeFEXIX8Q LAC2aClZCY67lrZzuYRCDA4QhMed6hfFn97ZDD+urVjd4WofZVotrkvfnEYUFoBJovc8 zxQ8inKTYwsRf8DOH8zFIS/AgjyPlpApQuLz6VZxC/GCEvha8oODo1x4WMmhxNHE8lUz myPdNVOwkJC7hwVnORmdVVtyjo/Edm/gzoafk4r0OOgGwilKhASrQtDLmx1FuMuO6Ddp haSO+ReGLNoeB8cWI6tGXFXsiqN1diBt1ZOTWK6K2RSjuwsMAzVrBUA0oto61/T/tTMU r1cA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXTX3Kua8LlMUDO+8wFd9VEl18e2dIKhnYesn+cXhhtWzITqBZk tfyKCLPyt5qnFxC6eq4hHH6YJh90f6Tt4qExAZpghg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz41RvHn3D7gcNbPPNXdri7Q5E8YrJY1sDzq/pAvK2ifyboG3c9T8S1ZcDwbh6Zgd5fJg8jStXRgk6d3Z5XQ2g=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:8183:: with SMTP id 3mr6248015wra.181.1561701506523; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12187.1558972629@localhost> <D3C7EB41-02E8-48D6-9335-26A041FD64C2@isc.org> <00C00FE5-C7CD-4B99-A2C9-CCBFCB1E4850@isc.org> <CAFU7BASfJ4YS6xBzK8hNJRSMnFZmdn3VE5A=sPCC3JqRa8SQEQ@mail.gmail.com> <EC63A89D-26CD-4093-8814-4461B6D3D327@isc.org> <CAFU7BASsAwitEc==Zj6qT4izy-tFosg23DHXFVVzOixidEfMFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASsAwitEc==Zj6qT4izy-tFosg23DHXFVVzOixidEfMFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:58:13 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3jDTS25ERGZYDDM9yRRTxEfY4Ltcd-QgFNor6ze2G7xA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008b01f5058c5bf7d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6ZTVdtDzXeNkPPloR32yWML_U2I>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 05:58:30 -0000

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:31 PM Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:

> 4) as I've mentioned before the use case seems to be pure hypothetical
> (I can not recall anyone claiming it's a real operational problem -
> but I might be wrong). In the scenario when a dual-stack network is
> connected to IPv6-only uplink (so DNS64 synthesis shouldn't be
> performed for the IPv4 addresses local to the network), 464XLAT would
> be most likely solution.
> SO for me it looks like a very special corner case for which we do not
> have operational experience yet
>

+1.

As a co-author, I don't see a real operational need for this at the moment.
Why is this not something that we can define later on in its own draft,
once we get more support for it and consensus that it is a useful thing to
do?

As an implementer, this really doesn't look like something I would want to
implement at the moment. Adding support for it would require writing a lot
of new code, and it would end up being unused anyway, because our
implementation prefers native IPv4 over 464xlat.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email