Re: draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-02

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Mon, 09 July 2012 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@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 07AF221F8830 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCykAY+xnn0T for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309C021F883F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so13008912yhq.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ULODcj5pBlQPzzin2wnVAaLCXsYPGa3vNStIYbkanqw=; b=Nwacj/O+cpDR7bW7B1tdtSBGMDvgpRQj1zUL5GEu4Vd3lRo8m21iYMqOuuKLZw7RjJ C/mOH62ql5/F4YdC7T60gMgef33m836acKZqD3AU5VaCMPhFAWluh3GY8IfoICU7J0gp ywaop+iA22cn7H1Sopf4V1VdV9rYLpQNyXBwpxGFH8v9QEKyUNt1FAnuUYjsarbIpZXw 6IC17nCVKmZ6bNHzUK38UZYwFiECp3xq2JO+SlhZBXaJC3pvQ/gXrw94JMcZYuWX0wDm t1kKj+puQpuLO+iY1tYNz9ixrcnfSspr922qtjCGEXmFkJ47uNSpLm9MQelQ9vsBFTPG cg3g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.183.200 with SMTP id eo8mr9382499igc.63.1341859304397; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.118.210 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTQf-VWawsDJWy4NTHePqWuw5LT39hrZ1E8XDzkHEVVGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4FF696AA.3050508@tut.fi> <23986.1341586765@marajade.sandelman.ca> <CAC8QAcfCw=ECvTGFGMabScFA+CQkw4_wTAfYg=5r=UQ4PBKcHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTQf-VWawsDJWy4NTHePqWuw5LT39hrZ1E8XDzkHEVVGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:41:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcd_DpUryqV8axbErFGKy6Zb9WRKKn4ADNqdGpSO7-+GCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-02
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Jul 2012 18:41:20 -0000

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Michael Richardson
>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> "Aleksi" == Aleksi Suhonen <Aleksi.Suhonen@tut.fi> writes:
>>>     Aleksi> Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our
>>>     Aleksi> NAT64 were registered to this one device.
>>>
>>> Do I understand that you attempt to provide a single IPv4 address 1:1
>>> with a an internal IPv6 address? (NAT vs NAPT)
>>
>> It seems like this is what is called stateless NAT64.
>> I am not sure if there is any document specifying stateless NAT64?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>
> Stateless = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145

Are you sure?

Here is a quote from 6146:
Stateful NAT64 is a mechanism for translating IPv6 packets to IPv4
   packets and vice versa.  The translation is done by translating the
   packet headers according to the IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm defined
   in [RFC6145].

Regards,

Behcet

>
> Stateful = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146
>
> If the goal is providing a dynamic access from an IPv6-only network
> toward IPv4-only internet, RFC 6146 is the optimal choice.
>
> RFC 6145 has limited use for the cases for IPv6 - > IPv4 since it is
> 1:1 mapping.  Most people do IPv6 because IPv4 is limited, so ...
> doing 1:1 mapping does not really buy you anything.  You can just use
> IPv4 and achieve the same scale.
>
> The best use case i have seen for RFC 6145 is for the data center
> environment http://fud.no/talks/20120417-RIPE64-The_Case_for_IPv6_Only_Data_Centres.pdf
>  as well as the mapping of the entire IPv4 internet into IPv6 as is
> the case of 464XLAT CLAT in the IPv4->IPv6  scenario.
>
> CB