Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

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

[...]

>>> 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