RE: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Tue, 29 March 2011 10:45 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63813A6952; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.693, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pE9wlVwmrE9S; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC343A68D4; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p2TAlMES029914; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:47:23 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.203]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:47:16 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>, 'Teemu Kiviniemi' <tekivini@csc.fi>, "teemu.savolainen@nokia.com" <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:47:15 -0400
Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix
Thread-Index: AcvsuKZl117vMpmdSv2qMkR5SwORbAAjTprwAC3irhA=
Message-ID: <4FD1E7CD248BF84F86BD4814EDDDBCC150F161274E@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE443096962014C5D@008-AM1MPN1-036.mgdnok.nokia.com> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1103272227310.13893@sampo3.csc.fi> <040201cbed46$6b4c5790$41e506b0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <040201cbed46$6b4c5790$41e506b0$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Mar 2011 10:45:49 -0000
Hi Dan/Teemu(s)/Cameron, I am afraid there is no single right answer here. There will be networks that will prefer NAT44 over NAT64 and those that prefer NAT64 over NAT44. For this reason, I think this is better left as a site-specific policy decision for distribution using a mechanism such as draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt. So, I agree with Dan and Cameron that we should not add an entry to the default table for the NAT64 prefix. Cheers Suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: behave-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wing > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:48 PM > To: 'Teemu Kiviniemi'; teemu.savolainen@nokia.com > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; behave@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf > > Of Teemu Kiviniemi > > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:53 PM > > To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com > > Cc: behave@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix > > > > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote: > > > > > I discussed shortly with Arifumi about RFC3484 default > policy table > > > updates and NAT64 WKP, i.e. whether the default policy > table should > > take > > > a stand on 64:ff9b::/96 preference. > > > > > > It seemed to us that default policy table does not > necessarily have > > to, > > > as it could be ok to handle addresses with WKP similarly to global > > IPv6 > > > addresses. Furthermore, the default policy table anyway > cannot cover > > > Network-Specific Prefixes. > > > > > > Hence prefixes used for protocol translation would be > handled like > > > global IPv6 addresses unless something different is > configured via > > > policy distribution mechanism? And this should perhaps be > documented > > > into the RFC3484-revised. > > > > I believe native IPv4 should always be preferred over > NAT64. Even if > > native IPv4 was using NAT, it is likely to work better with current > > applications than NAT64. > > > > Preferring IPv4 over the NAT64 well-known prefix does not fix the > > problem for network-specific NAT64 prefixes. However, I see > no reasons > > why the > > NAT64 WKP should not be given a lower preference than IPv4 > by default. > > One reason is that it changes behavior for a network using > the well-known > NAT64 prefix versus using their own network's NAT64 prefix. > Not to mention they won't know if/when their IPv6 devices are > using the new > RFC3484 default table, and will thus start shifting their > preference away from IPv6 (and a NAT64) and towards IPv4 (and > a NAPT44, because let's be real, everyone will have a NAPT44 > if we're talking about an > RFC3484 change). > > Personally, I don't see any benefit to changing RFC3484 table > to accomodate NAT64, assuming there is a way for the host to > learn its NAT64 prefix (draft-korhonen-behave-nat64-learn-analysis). > Assuming there is no standard way to learn the prefix by the > time we would want to standardize rfc3484bis, I see harm in > adding the NAT64 well known prefix 64:ff9b::/96 to the > default policy table. > > -d > > > > -- > > Teemu > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > Behave@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave >
- RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix teemu.savolainen
- Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix Cameron Byrne
- Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix Teemu Kiviniemi
- Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix Cameron Byrne
- Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix teemu.savolainen
- Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix Dan Wing
- RE: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known … Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known … Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known … Hui Deng