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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 06 July 2012 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 1F4AD21F85C5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
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 dEjlF6beODk4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D53521F85A1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A65A781E0; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:56:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 4F83D98C40; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B689811D; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Aleksi Suhonen <Aleksi.Suhonen@tut.fi>
Subject: Re: draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-02
In-Reply-To: <4FF696AA.3050508@tut.fi>
References: <4FF696AA.3050508@tut.fi>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:59:25 -0400
Message-ID: <23986.1341586765@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn, ipv6@ietf.org, niu.qibo@zte.com.cn
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:59:12 -0000

>>>>> "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)

Can you tell me what your expiry time is for reclaiming the IPv4 address?
Would IPv6 ping'ing the internal device help?

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works