Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Wed, 15 November 2017 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746891294D3 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:52:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVGM9Lf85iKt for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9741270A0 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:52:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1510732374; x=1511337174; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=8U9kf6zNXv+YY7mB293KXN+Ml hlisldwjT0QEr9UlMU=; b=UOc0RyYHGsNUEF/f9ShGq2Wq5D4xuf44duTqIAgSt Mt8OK9Z/lbxCJo8ItWKjuKpR82vjcnXiqVX2jD880tKhQHfyWUXAhn26bm3nGd/0 hwkEddon9mqcQGld8DGzSH21qYa4iIocHWiIWw7wBOCK5GV5UX4+QNBo+umvtQBH jo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=EAuFoUBl03XdrIFWEtWnau9j2FCO+HbCgubbKu0+nL5UpLA3VKgsayWj257U AR73bo6qetOwcFSZdyG9738V9zSjU/6W5uYs+RVGAKAPZD166pAnl7yDV B/SehpoCDRLPcJuMHe0Qc+LVZz1Y0kTC+NJIqE6OkezF+lGl5GsZKY=;
X-MDAV-Processed:, Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:52:54 +0100
X-Spam-Processed:, Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:52:53 +0100
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005624246.msg for <>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:52:51 +0100
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-HashCash: 1:20:171115:md50005624246::cLF62cDlZCWYvqt4:00004x3q
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:52:32 +0800
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: 6man WG <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 07:52:57 -0000

> I thought this deployment provided dual stack service? 464XLAT, no?
    > My definition of ipv6-only includes 464xlat
    Terminology is tricky. As proven by Jordi's presentation in v6ops today.
    The difference as I see it between IPv6 only + NAT64 and 464XLAT is that in the former an IPv4 application cannot work.
    While in the latter the host has an IPv4 address and the IPv4 only application works just as if it is provisioned with IPv4 using any other means. That being native, LW46, MAP-E, MAP-T, L2TP, Public4over6, DSTM, 2473, DS-lite...
    Different use cases. While 464XLAT is a way to tunnel IPv4 across an IPv6 only access network (albeit with a null encap. :-)), IPv6 only + NAT64 is about delivering IPv6 only to hosts and applications. Applications would only have an IPv6 address to bind to. This use case would be much more akin to an enterprise network or home network.
[Jordi] The problem I see here is that in both home and enterprise networks, for at least 3-4 years, we will have to support IPv4 only devices (as just mention in a previous email). So NAT64 is not sufficient.
    > 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
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    Administrative Requests:

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.