Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 20 November 2017 23:31 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 CDB46129AA8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:31:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 np-EO7BEN8bD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (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 478B5120713 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id i15so8445889pfa.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:31:02 -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=JGiiw0vFXgtW/bMbDU1JLeFhQWvG74t2jYBCvAhRJkY=; b=tHv1MxvUR2U4k4cGDUxwuVrP73EqEXUB9VMQO/YI+0zRanqEfc4hQEYYGurxWoZRw0 UHeryHiAXRJfhigjtYt2X4uaJmU3+TkN4fh7HC/Ce2ASVqTD+kjMH0I2BavH+Gexrysp 2F8llYNyWzHLuEw2aFx/kxGIZ/d1LTpaRpBfaRzvQCXglBqr3eiwcwBmHCcBsxhE0ScE 3yDiCZfFdFhajNMQeGIw+J/eUt7HLhDadhPy9F98zNnKqaN5dgvYex/6QMsN8aEKn/1r WPPEyiWtH++HsxFT9PKEGg2yFqL13/DV1KFXJ0zohPsaUaY7ErVp+V4DwdK925SsZNyt nrFw==
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=JGiiw0vFXgtW/bMbDU1JLeFhQWvG74t2jYBCvAhRJkY=; b=hK9WjDm57GF3GiN3DakOnqQraBwnMSraGoqp0z/tE1ZTGyiPE6PWC5bzzUPuJY7VWK Q4N5X+aBLDnRkEzo9tO3KqGG1zH+tiS3+RxuIUq3f1zF8Zn1lb2b6Jpn23BgMZHZZ27I gBIh7lADFWE3H6H5GswHBgPGv1BljVIbjHyDLpiLJeNqWiuKrviAKJ3kaK54NAbG9a7M iMfNk5Zx6clEJBr1mWuNj8CtpSNgoal5M239x+rl+D/14UconIJkC0Htm7sRf+KjhEvu bNwzeja0OXwBv7QBnUWxvF0dTkUC+GtGSMM+5h3CwO9V5YgavZttq9nJNzTPUVmTdhuJ MXaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6zzlk+io8umCYsfnFMkIWWvu/QV3iqqsxGQaNudNv5oHHEaKW1 PZ8L/59+wo21B5i13I4ZlSvm9w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbfv3gr3wglaLBy0kpzByz4zDA+1igaCoaoUr0CT9wgPdgRSO+lvx01yGuqvIUTwbl0brla9Q==
X-Received: by 10.98.149.72 with SMTP id p69mr13099550pfd.76.1511220661466; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.216.38.102] (sc-cs-567-laptop.uoa.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m9sm21133896pff.26.2017.11.20.15.30.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:31:00 -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> <CAFU7BARoXgodiTJfTGc1dUfQ8-ER_r8UOE1c3h-+G0KTeCgBew@mail.gmail.com> <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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a77addfd-a53c-bb3a-5417-e3b18a03d8e9@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:30:57 +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: <200AD734-6AEC-4CE9-A921-B9555821B646@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/PMLzNLPOHJEFaL8TEAOAQ9NhpOw>
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, 20 Nov 2017 23:31:04 -0000

On 21/11/2017 11:51, 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.

   Brian