Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Jen Linkova <> Mon, 20 November 2017 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471C712EAA8 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:53:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kQO57Cmh40w for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:53:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95AEE126DFB for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k66so11646666lfg.3 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:53:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j0vPbMT1q92GC38AKqKUZfIqB8coCQhU99aaqTWA7bY=; b=UDw97yfq5WwfwLLb/uLBaZplQMRS2AswXPj54XQtA5/Exy68igWewYzse2xLNfuUQX oYyNkMH77jGnl2dgII+Y2vMrOgmjG3ilCuD2vrjhCW32jvLx8/mHF9LCsmkmQFN3023S 7X+5TdJ7cp0Ux2xbLB5Airl+NuRPs3M/E3aKzRX/sSa/aP6IdKsQFeZ7s1llfGJ2qC7o SHQ6NnK3suk/gsCbaZqiMLrXWimZnmlaJjFdbYjwUFuKow5t5HCLP7Ch+GcrobYdlZDv RIK+Jk62o4B9hJIPopglUpDIBKe5C9TP4TtaH6nYQxOogM9dew+qHUnqFxD4Yz9Eb62y aQLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j0vPbMT1q92GC38AKqKUZfIqB8coCQhU99aaqTWA7bY=; b=Mdd+WqZr3Hw136VboU5G+HS4//FtSFpM/3awyMoJzEzMVqPZuSt2wLxty4jZpo1Tye hhk33jUfS2YXTtLe9jGhFMeZEAL4vCxwEPPdk5kwgEX0Gw+iBV3rNnv3DT0UEuP3/Mzi uDmVOuwpZMh4tm0DO4EbzdRNgVPvYgYJo2Vk7RFkzbtZSVy+4JMHTBOQtSk+Oe7FY+lg Wdeq9dY8XJurXJBmK16mt2cH7dNAg2e+zgxnATOYNcyidnrAlBmZRS7TVgK5LQ75wi2A j2sZZS3IHx74o2hD35X9vnlGYitnKHSKwr2HK86J73ZJM/q1/VNFo3zMYE8ZjvdIwLxf Uu7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7rG25/nN4tHYDR5tAQ1uugo45Mgx0OxqdU3dc+aMSzw68ti/n0 D12kH9dKk2d/pFZEy1tOuo9lF9g6cvwhnlEI7XY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ7MiEP21LIFqvsKANeB/A3WFA0i39DSIopSREWfU3JNeraU3c7o2+7BB7YjrgLjdF/tNZ/AYv6lsx1yzr0c/Q=
X-Received: by with SMTP id l12mr4092595lfb.111.1511211215745; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:53:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:53:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07C625@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D481@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D534@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D63D@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:53:14 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Ole Troan <>
Cc: Mohamed Boucadair <>, 6man WG <>, Mark Andrews <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:53:39 -0000

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Ole Troan <> wrote:
>>> The arguments against dual stack:
>>> - expensive to operate
>>> - little progress towards the end goal of IPv6 only
>> [Med] These are generic statements, Ole. We are talking about the IETF case.
>> * The IETF has no control on the hosts that connect to the IETF network,
>> * IETF attendees who are using corporate devices, have no control on these hosts
>> So, how forcing devices to use "IPv6+nat64" will help here?

I'm still working on the experiment results write-up but off top of my
head I can tell you that:
1) people told me they are coming back to their IT departments asking
them to fix their VPNs. As there are other places out there providing
Ipv6-only as a 'primary/default' wifi (AFAIR FOSDEM is doing this, for
example, not mentioning some companies deploying v6-only networks) I
think it's quite useful for those people to be prepared.
2) bug reports for the broken applications were filled
3) we finally have some numbers on 'what % of people can not get their
work done if their devices do not have v4 addresses' - before it was
'some saying that it would never work while others saying it works just fine'.
4) we observed that the situation has improved even since IETF99 so we
are moving in right direction.
5) as a result of the experiment some changes have been applied to the
IETF network to improve it and bugs opened with vendors.
6) we are having this discussion in 6man about host requirements.

on Friday afternoon I discovered that I had turned off Ipv4 on my
laptop on Tue morning and left it like that...Noticed it only because
got connected
to Ipv4-only network ;)))

> Eat own dogfood. Many IETF people are developers or work for companies having applications not working.
> As I said there were a minimum of applications that didn't work. Corporate VPNs largely did. Jen has the final numbers.

Stay tuned, I'm getting the numbers together, will get it done this week.

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry