Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 23 November 2017 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 9E7AA1200F3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:18:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 vszXbey04cZK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl0-x236.google.com (mail-pl0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) (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 96E081200CF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl0-x236.google.com with SMTP id k7so1754155pln.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:18:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=U51gJQroOS87LP+L4YONcpZ/kqSnjcb6gWIKFaON5vE=; b=HRIjyVjMPQLaS5jG++bF/HppBdjYMv1i9r6CXRRr/gkDjEg+ZxM0WWK7Cizc/jOfx7 pzE4FXIiB1WcTXtJN4+9FWfN3xGRfdbR43cqMEVtsaRiF6XxrbIigXdgRdpPQOllUH2/ lQccrLNzaOkEMJ/psH2MbVhQdFpDGiQ8N3Qp8BQ2kgejn2fakUuxx3TEp0lmeHqUtV3D vkCgxeePkahEFtv3aleyItiJJjYyCKKwM4ZoZ5tky043/cW9b0lwzCow8tbSZ2cwcG6t P1z+TpJRWFd2XSyn3Z2ECvj4yehhs0PMpBhnvfjbq0L9e5Z0ao8nHHKOPP8XW14rZTiW 0L8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U51gJQroOS87LP+L4YONcpZ/kqSnjcb6gWIKFaON5vE=; b=r6XIQEDON4DEgjnI18pT2Qe0xoRu0t/FRTN36/W3XSJpgX+pxSMS+L/VdJzDn+7DWl lroqQKHPvHYlyIcQeCvWjTcrKKwLeiKS982nC6CEQVrNMSKub8k9J0lNz0atLogloVL+ auFdhB/LX99Rn5M9a0m3SrfdZeCxx4PcBPHVnR6i2u1nF9yEE8XE8rf01qRC+rvAnOoL 6PvDUu/z55XDP/udbW+eA07tq692lV7ffGLPzErb5mluOWF1pIsPA2TXif7ZFfw1aVm7 mnnxIGK786W2aCrib3FszI6A/vcutgfEbzypt9zNZ2QUCX/zX+2+FHJLBuKEYVcFJGmc GgOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5MjOxs7bS4RRoDcHMkc5EBviW8d/8zH8H4penO0vb11RmrkyPI av1evUidhjYWN+BgVG9Dcm9zfg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZi3mUTZIVgmdx8ED8ryFtWABDkxwz9wqj36tVmgNKKK63vJVYAeK4+6CSNBvULmj4oroudnQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.240.70 with SMTP id h6mr4549312plt.349.1511399922644; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:18:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t6sm4536293pfl.76.2017.11.22.17.18.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAFU7BARoXgodiTJfTGc1dUfQ8-ER_r8UOE1c3h-+G0KTeCgBew@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07C625@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7EE41034-132E-45F0-8F76-6BA6AFE3E916@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D481@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <0C83562D-859B-438C-9A90-2480BB166737@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D534@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <26A31D20-46C2-473E-9565-59E5BA85ED8B@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D63D@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <F9E3BD88-38E0-4329-A4BF-22083A023268@employees.org> <f673d6c7-570e-b2b8-e8aa-15d73ea8ba3f@gmail.com> <46365c7f-f9e9-0559-9f09-d6b565ff7f99@nlogic.no> <0a13ea07-6b60-9ae6-659e-c054acdc156d@gmail.com> <2bbae231-d57e-4ba7-8ac5-65dbba9a9da2@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGR=g4M-=ndPugaLcGPrGCne284fY60kfO5MBaWoU1y4NA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a8da1861-7db3-39c9-13de-f69ff4a514b1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:18:45 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGR=g4M-=ndPugaLcGPrGCne284fY60kfO5MBaWoU1y4NA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/G-GQBnFzFcky09uAgrjEu3inC_0>
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: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:18:44 -0000

On 23/11/2017 02:52, Ca By wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:05 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Le 22/11/2017 à 01:01, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :

<snip>

>>>> Possibly, or even probably, introducing IPv6 (-only and NAT64) will even
>>>> make the situation better for a lot of people, as you get rid of all the
>>>> horrible NAT solutions for services that are already dual stacked.
>>>
>>> But those horrible NAT solutions are up and running today.
>>
>> It will be noticed that on NAT64 ESSID the experience is worse than on
>> IPv4, at least for VPN sessions.
>>
> 
> 
> How would the vpn service be improved? If the VPN server / peer was ipv6
> enabled then it would just be e2e v6, no?
> 
> I like to refer back to Occam’s Razor e2e v6 rather than transition Rube
> Goldberg

I think we all agree on the long-term fix. The issue seems to be how
we can best (or least badly) deal with legacy hosts and apps that
will be out there for years, generating help desk calls or lost
business.

"Hi! Your hotel group has been removed from our corporate travel
plan because none of our employees can connect to our corporate VPN
from your hotels any more, as confirmed by your WiFi supplier."

   Brian