IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 15 November 2017 21:47 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 0FCF61250B8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:47:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 vgReOdD89rpZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 536F01279E5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:47:16 -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 A2FE62D4F99; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:47:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19441200C2614F; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:47:15 +0800 (+08)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <5D9D33A8-88F0-4758-84FA-BCB364E8013F@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBFD9CD7-EF32-468A-BD54-12897E98A1A4"; 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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:47:13 +0800
In-Reply-To: <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com>
Cc: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <m1eEHPS-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <59B0BEC0-D791-4D75-906C-84C5E423291B@employees.org> <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Vnu_-nsmso0Rb3j2-Vcu8PJiKfs>
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:47:18 -0000

James,

>> IMHO the optimal solution is:
>> - the network SHOULD provide a host with NAT64 prefix information in RA;
> 
> Disagree. If the network has NAT64, then it should deploy RFC 7225. Ye gods, this is the very last thing that should be jammed into RA messages.

Do we really want PCP in IPv6?
Is PCP successful in IPv4? Or does it even work well with A+P based solutions?

> 
>>  (I do not believe that information needs to be duplicated in DHCP at all)
> 
> Totally agree about that.

Appears this isn't as simple a problem as I thought. Let me read 7051 in it's excruciating detail.

Guess we're stuck.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email