Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Jen Linkova <> Tue, 21 November 2017 07:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78245128AFE for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:06:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KZKMIjVBvnx5 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79BEB12EB87 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i14so12883917lfc.1 for <>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:05:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2YmNVAPvh9DjguKE9tV9XIlYaiBY3eYjZl6APerDS3o=; b=HDYeCdFXscoCTzVT/xi4elLIy5RwdkGMw0ouqon1FxuNWJb3k9AMjXs69JfmAlXoB2 /9KJxVF6ztw6vAGmX0vf/66jjWq80TQF4MqTYre8OVT3CcfJpeixhoX/4TSwtI5PMiI3 Us4EgC38UBGKIn8E6piMWxRrdamgpdeXuvwSQZK6t0w2mGsJ2k3+NV3IbauslmLdsIMc tXrxx4s5wdjEUBrnt9eVMRaVU+etWe5ggDuR3QQIQbwx5YbMdG0L1JOp09U+/fO9sJOP mQcK7d/CwRBy1hbB/6imGun7UTHuCKi1U0Ui1cdO73kBdT3ZjM+CwYh6RgyN/62/G3c5 VN4Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2YmNVAPvh9DjguKE9tV9XIlYaiBY3eYjZl6APerDS3o=; b=rn/lLAQrDZco5RjquHSI1jbSWrkLHpvBiQqA1TPP6ulxU9F9ofObXfSu+4HV8Y+t/s lc1LRee99VAnL/fOpOiWTNdXe20wGH1EpKZgENCNw6fHXimWPuTnrffCDZJyUboPWqxH sRy79l+NWJwCwqiUv2sg9UGfKWhzWYWL7yPOsBtRe0hFgFWd+Q0adQgxIG6V0t54O3Qb TqLCO8+fFLtehh1fLPr4Dfrosdc7q8c9tWGzLXZeGBWeHuFbmRNxu5gVON8JwpYkmw04 aBEEbpZaZT9weJYC6JF7k8O09y0CnSWC/nkc8YtzZokLtHk5y4pg+uhC3DISD5dcE0tc p2nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5QaQTy/vaG/GUQL5uP3WHHkThfG5++9hRQjrzEubUMmN+SITFg ED6kyxeVefVbih7UWlvgGtm+svEw6o3VXMe/fcM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZH30o7IPNqkFqAR6oxTwLrDQojrLVYJNFm+LwOF+51ywB13NHvFQPtPrdzcPDQG5D+ai6X6q8UrZ8AsrlGpdI=
X-Received: by with SMTP id u137mr5767049lja.79.1511247929492; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:05:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:05:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07C625@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D481@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D534@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D63D@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:05:08 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: "Manfredi, Albert E" <>, 6man WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:06:25 -0000

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:
> Fair enough. But now, and for many years, IPv6-only hosts** will
> be unusual (except on some cellular networks); IPv4-only hosts are
> common, and dual stack hosts are common.
> ** In my book, a host that contains even one IPv4-only application
> cannot be considered as an "IPv6-only" host.
>> People from the real world is coming to IETF saying 'we are deploying
>> Ipv6-only hosts' [1] [2]
> Sure. And I think the tests last week showed two things:
> 1. NAT64/DNS64 is viable for IPv6-only hosts (setting aside DNSSEC).
> 2. IPv6-only hosts are far from universal, even among IETF
> participants.

What I really wanted to know was exactly how universal those hosts are..

Unfortunately only 33 people have responded to the survey I sent ;( 8
of them said that they can not get their work
done on NAT64 while for the rest it was either "everything worked just
fine" or "smth was broken but not critical" (and yes, there was that
network issue which
affected the user experience..;(

It also showed that some applications which used to be IPv4-only are
now working on NAT64 network.
At least when you run the latest version of the app/the latest version of OSes.

I see it that way: I'm running a network and I do not want to run a
dual-stack one. At least I'd like to minimize IPv4-only/dual-stack
The fact that there will be some old hosts/apps which could not work
on v4-only network just means that I might not be able
to migrate *all* hosts to v6-only overnight/any time soon.
The same way I still keep 2.4Ghz SSIDs (and some devices using it) in
addition to 5Ghz ones (where majority of devices are sitting).
Number of Ipv4-only applications will go down overtime and eventually
it would not have much sense to maintain them
(as it would be cheaper to get rid of them than maintain dual-stack
only for a few old things..).
When that moment comes for a given network depends on many factors indeed.

> And BTW thanks for the effort behind ietf-nat64. I think it
> was a very valuable effort.

You are welcome, I'm glad to hear that people find this experiment useful.
All credits goes to the IETF NOC actually, I was just a messenger ;)
(and someone who enjoyed running Wireshark ;))

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry