Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bCE2691D2@u-1.phicoh.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 50532129454 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:24:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8TzdMnzND3yF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD06129449 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1eEGbJ-0000EhC; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:24:41 +0100
Message-Id: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bCE2691D2@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:50:40 +0800 ." <6755862C-AA12-45B4-98B8-EF6D9F90898B@employees.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:24:30 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EFy4VIScODGQZF3j8ZwKi3__lz4>
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 15:24:47 -0000

In your letter dated Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:50:40 +0800 you wrote:
>If this is the direction we want to go. Encourage IPv6 only host 
>deployments (as opposed to dual stack hosts), are these requirements 
>we'd like to add to the IPv6 node requirements document? Somewhere else

Personally I don't like how NAT64 requires an IPv6 stack to deal with all
kinds of IPv4 issues. So for IPv6 node requirements, it should not go
beyond the level of MAY.