Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 20 November 2017 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 DD4DD1296B0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:09:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TR5g3g18maZU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D71CB129A9C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id vAKE9cY4005931 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:09:38 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B4F6B20876E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:09:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCFB2086FA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:09:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id vAKE9ccT029328 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:09:38 +0100
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <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>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32ebefa2-219b-83a6-ecc8-068ed96f71da@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:09:38 +0100
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: <F9E3BD88-38E0-4329-A4BF-22083A023268@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ktEPm66xJ5LElb1GctrfVaxXeBs>
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 14:09:47 -0000


Le 20/11/2017 à 14:36, Ole Troan a écrit :
> Med,
> 
>>>>>> [Med] As you are mentioning "IETF" explicitly, NAT64 may not be the
>>>>> appropriate "IPv4 service continuity" solution here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> [Med] Because dual-stack can do the job without any extra effort.
>>>
>>> That's not a valid answer, when the question to be explored is "Is it
>>> possible to run IPv6 only hosts?".
>>
>> [Med] You should admit that there are questions that don't make sense if not contextualized.
> 
> Freely admitted. Although I thought that was made clear both earlier in thread and by subject. ;)
> 
>>> The arguments against dual stack:
>>> - expensive to operate
>>> - little progress towards the end goal of IPv6 only
>>
>> [Med] These are generic statements, Ole. We are talking about the IETF case.
>> * The IETF has no control on the hosts that connect to the IETF network,
>> * IETF attendees who are using corporate devices, have no control on these hosts
>>
>> So, how forcing devices to use "IPv6+nat64" will help here?
> 
> Eat own dogfood. Many IETF people are developers or work for companies having applications not working.

Agreed.

> As I said there were a minimum of applications that didn't work. Corporate VPNs largely did. Jen has the final numbers.

My VPN did not work and I wont be able to make my employer change the VPN.

Alex

> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> Advanced features have been also specified, e.g.,
>>>> - if you want to allow for incoming connections: e.g., access a video
>>> server
>>>> - if you want to avoid overloading NAT64 with all sorts of ALGs
>>>> - if you want to avoid draining the battery of your mobile because of
>>> the keepalive messages
>>>
>>> Yep, but I think the cat is largely out of the bag here, and an
>>> application must work in the "smallest common denominator" network.
>>
>> [Med] More concretely?
> 
> - ALGs do more harm than gain. Applications have been forced to deal with NAT traversal. As in ICE/STUN/TURN.
>    Applications must work with any NAT also those without ALGs. ALGs are dead.
> - For the applications that need the keepalive wouldn't they send traffic anyway, so that it wouldn't be an additional battery drain.
>    Example of application that doesn't?
> - Incoming connections? Didn't think we did that on the Internet anymore? :-(
>    That's static configuration in one case, and for the other symmetric hole punching (as in the ICE/STUN case).
> 
> Would PCP have helped, yes, possibly, but given that applications must work without it anyway...
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>