Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 13 November 2017 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 04BF5129B08 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:31:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XltFl_VoVIRG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CDE8120454 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (dhcp-9240.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.146.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4C6B2D5119; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:31:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B17200C03E2A; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:30:39 +0800 (+08)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <44AC4D4A-1525-49B4-BB6B-E083399BE42D@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BBEE4AF8-D31B-416A-BE36-04A35D8BBCE2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:30:38 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRgsmsduL9_jyzWjKJhKsBiFuVOZat0_E_Yys59V5-jPg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <CAD6AjGR3FrVST4nyDDSOzFW8txK974FiFTtzt-4_GJwUvoA--Q@mail.gmail.com> <B1B5B9A2-9108-48C8-AEFF-B2B105B13485@employees.org> <CAD6AjGRgsmsduL9_jyzWjKJhKsBiFuVOZat0_E_Yys59V5-jPg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/O8805tNbihbmLS-tgY_8TolCas0>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:31:11 -0000

Cameron,

> > 1. ICE and STUN are apps, and they should be fixed in the app layer not network.
> 
> Right, AFAIK IOS solves it at the stack level (with some application requirements). So this can go both ways.
> 
> >
> > 2.  ICE and STUN work great today with v4 and v6 peer candidates, especially when combined with their close cousin TURN, in TRAM WG and specifically https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis/
> 
> But we did find ICE/STUN applications not working in an IPv6 only + NAt64 network at the hackathon.
> 
> The ICE needs to be paired with a dual stack TURN server, i believe that is the correct way to handle this scenario
> 
> That way, the peers always see v4 and v6 candidates
> 
> The issue you saw was that the v6 host was only presented with v4 peers from ICE?

Yep. Agree with the solution.
Unless If you synthesized the IPv4 address and went through a NAT64 instead of the TURN you could have a more direct path. Or not.

Cheers,
Ole