Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 21 November 2017 01:01 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 354C812EB08 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:01:56 -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 7icNt2lyiwCx for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:01:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (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 2A55412EB07 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:01:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id r88so4650213pfi.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:01:53 -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=t35qHIlP8nwOudO5jIQkYv5FtGyAw6yXMRp7w7chNUE=; b=cfTrb5QMYxw7AE6mJgulMF6O0PwMEnxptG5byXH8g4huCxI+PWugbc4yn5srUXEgsQ 0RYfgLrYqPOajvsJcFZ+gXITS5n4Ei6GTlhn/OMKLy3NgLEF81SU5u2mbGgeYL4qZav3 FN1Tjj0gaK9y2ZeqYaFZGiIYIDH7kR3o21jWbO0/BTJM9CiD/d42zOmWgOLFJv63HQJQ nieUZNMb+ZDlQ0/3kVStBjDOVauYG23HfNjTRGsk5wjWzNl046LCa19aETGzbB6Ici3L l8H6punzeDqqvbpuN5xNEsc7R5afTU1/ie23FqS7CxNV8EFlkAQmA+pLw/Bzh0vM34cr D+CA==
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=t35qHIlP8nwOudO5jIQkYv5FtGyAw6yXMRp7w7chNUE=; b=tiFFk5awDpeIuJblOsaVA2cVUzxaBL7ah8qGH2NTMf4EkbMS48rxPVTE6OF0zcrIjo XB/IMnsdvTp3KASOCUkMMLaxO5sAmo0KbHw0OAcPVNzKazl16bERr8aP8B1JiCG0mlu4 GoUW5jTS/0AdfguHv69wrilwUUER502y0pXXH8Y8HIi0AyfzEdlkwciri7xp+g2GmfO2 DYQP0SrnKqr2tbepK5PG7iThhNF5dJcHc/gfWAPj/eCl6CmPq3B+v+XTWrBiEmVyxnc+ HIlq6a0UaA09esgnIYIhDVDxfY/9vjuJXDct9+B3HdpnQ54SFyTdmFGVvIgp5tENtdvs Q4bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX48GW2I2aA/C44kG086Y/WOP2t7auwXqgMmoV2GyPw5Q4h1XciO Bnk4DAQLRshLtWdgkoBGkHxnQg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZgjbgwAx4bgyC3lBqLTPbAVhq6d9seA1fcTeIhM1gWOLXQ+pECJbQ8SvVZsK3BRtrmV4riQA==
X-Received: by 10.101.68.69 with SMTP id e5mr14922821pgq.282.1511226112000; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:01:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.41.18] ([202.36.244.186]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm21705747pfn.179.2017.11.20.17.01.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:01:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <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> <e697e64116f245f0b462a1a2277c704b@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D638AAD2.8C6F2%lee@asgard.org> <3a20ce57-2a61-bca3-9e25-6d4c38c12888@gmail.com> <200AD734-6AEC-4CE9-A921-B9555821B646@employees.org> <a77addfd-a53c-bb3a-5417-e3b18a03d8e9@gmail.com> <C9CDCB26-CDE6-4892-87D2-0934EEC5CE23@employees.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <16d4277c-5ea7-1615-fecb-355436e1fcfc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:01:47 +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: <C9CDCB26-CDE6-4892-87D2-0934EEC5CE23@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/M0vbYK-J7uQDm375qdl8PquzcSA>
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 01:01:56 -0000

On 21/11/2017 12:53, Ole Troan wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>>>> One thing that we demonstrated very convincingly last week
>>>> is that there are enough legacy devices and applications in
>>>> existing user hosts that the co-existence plan is still needed.
>>>> (And, BTW, we demonstated it for user hosts belonging to
>>>> relatively sophisticated users.)
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>> Data please.
>>
>> Well, I assume that Jen et al will produce a summary report, but
>> the number of tickets at https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/wiki/nat64
>> tells me that ietf-nat64 did not provide a smooth co-existence
>> experience for everybody. Imagine that each of those tickets equates
>> to one support call per week, multiplied by the number of hotels
>> in the world.
> 
> The purpose of the experiment was to get some real data.
> Before jumping to conclusions let's get the report. No-one thought this would work without a single flaw.
> And this experiment is not about providing IPv6 only service to hotels, it is about providing IPv6 only + NAT64 to the IETF network.
> 
> 32 tickets. Where people were encouraged to report anything. You cannot just assume those are real issues without looking at them.
> E.g. you can discount 1151, 1175, 1185, 1160, 1174, 1172, 1159 straight away.
> Some tickets may contain multiple issues and so on.
> 
> Looks like we're left with a handful of applications and some OS issues. We're not talking rocket science to get those fixed.

Sure, and we should try. But we can't fix legacy hosts in the hands of the general public.

   Brian