IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 14 November 2017 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 EC2F31293D8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:40:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 NvyuoLdym9ZY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (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 608FE128D44 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id m191so14272697itg.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:40:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jdyqPb+uWm/3RQIAD7/z6SYZIsEJMd/f8BF9Zju5OJo=; b=kREr/x4lcI1pVLyyFe7msPCkr0NkXzkyX9B4LJVannV9064vmR6vKv4BXlTkAshWQS dc5Zd+0+0V+JMMEN+ZwVfDs0erZaoP9JMaPaaYbRl6mJaL22aBPRA6NL6DQFRz1cQua9 sI/+2YRKdMx79JGkr1mDvF6XhJvutP1GvMjjFR+ehp2o+KfENRFcWdvZyB6MfLZZg8u3 tK35uJnMEU3dtRZ/dW0gW4sKsbUu0cIkWX4fJFrdTa8EnkTMD1sB/ABNFdXfm09YtZhQ 1IIzJogDPk1tf+Gbn9ggQujl2w+ZJWmuX1/e8uHm91thxOqTThGOIuATqHHP99tST5/d oCJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jdyqPb+uWm/3RQIAD7/z6SYZIsEJMd/f8BF9Zju5OJo=; b=SfBDACOkLymFvfF1E4xcq9f+ZpG2gSSjrZ2L4al1qnyqZVnZhrelNnvCemEkR97i+q DVGF2NxX6nQZ18MzeDfy6NR02mnDKPOV3bOBC1BRvK8mAiL/JfcPL6kZJtmXUVk+hRii eIKuwXO0l+em37GkweA3ZFLyE4BBi+sqUDZwppECikHSXW0H43uU/4vlk1vJiSxGlBfJ oaU1Yoll6uHQ1nGRE89U7xIt1+QCDk8ktcj+f+K4/FWEMpIz5Ihwtz0KSrAwZs1lI12j 5b5M+fLPN2OyX4dHA0tY5dMurpp/I5lUiKmzSP2SjNO/zCfmC/XYl71fx6rDfVARib7U b5WA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4b71Y+lA9qmtb+uM5lkq/IGx3qmmSPSdFzxI7qSC+8tx2ima/l AfnDxKFuKZwO/Dlw20CVjjLFOzylIVq3GYYdgGeO8HVe
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMazz/k/8dGGPMjcFTuO6xijGtXIkA/1jszVK4NRzV1P/TIZLMkhqOuRQomqJMy1a+to2SO0E7CV7xBcVQEyX0U=
X-Received: by 10.36.252.68 with SMTP id b65mr15760232ith.151.1510677646233; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:40:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.82.19 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:40:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org>
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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:40:25 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b285879f050055df40cbb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/WKYYTLYdBfXM1O-bi08T8TKrhds>
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:40:49 -0000

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> Is there any reason to run DNS64 at all these days?  ipv4only.arpa can be
> a preconfigured
> zone which allows CLAT to get its mapping.  All the phones have CLAT
> support.


That's an interesting idea. It would work in theory, but such a network
would completely break devices that don't support 464xlat. That gives up
one of the major advantages of NAT64/DNS64, which is that it's a 90%
solution even just by itself - yes, IPv4-only applications and address
literals exist, but most simple client/server applications Just Work behind
it.

It's not true that all phones have clat support. Notably, Apple not only
does not support it but appears ideologically opposed to it on the grounds
that it does not have a good exit strategy (because it makes it possible to
run IPv4-only apps forever).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email