Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>