Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 DA1F8126557 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:16:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8OMsmD6jGNTS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A208B120721 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a4so2925210ywh.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:16:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c79r/aUOmSW2ilN8M9XYO4Ci1/SCbH/378Rq8PN+10Y=; b=D6VbunShdADzZSz8hLBBoD0Obf2J8mO4Tdyhagzo+DLG2dGuA1z+52n3Llsww6O8DZ L8ezjnExJqkWkjn7apm27+AUlkn19g6vGssoFAJnTVVv1PHfIQrWtkcl/SQt/59frdb4 Ddattthk5DqQiLMgbE/2bpDQT5337aRDwpgVIeRY7e2lTor9VPx2M4S9UWFdjoKhklmd 1g7GDfkKUfvBsbnDxxckt2/7GyzvmGxlUkBDNhn5FBQIscdcX1MDFLatjpkf/dAjshVK YE4EwV9dt830rJOiHtVAT8euQGdrP9fVMo1HhnU4XLTIEJ2BeZv5UND5dTTYF3SoIQly /6pQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c79r/aUOmSW2ilN8M9XYO4Ci1/SCbH/378Rq8PN+10Y=; b=rQ8GmyyeJXI88M+HMRo3k7IkLk2JWdwtwCaXq8B28jlBzYaQuzHQf+RXx4rL5uJBed 6X+lISD5vGLRdwBpQ5JSVFx+ny6JIUp4mGiKfdEPlEiFBrU/kwYohn07x0Tvlu0ta9qX Mgw7CEzpndCwdJAHsTaifTnzegrO4qCcRkl0FwPGWP7KXYHB65qV52vCAURAaCTl4uQG K5SMJ4aAfS7kFAcIHHcDVubuVlehlggfx2y04sCt53XD968TDo7QGdGyO6CRqlJrBiZe DopkEAIQj2wduCyXKm8P2rTau3QGrZMKavlWjgWCuz0Klkpm+G9hvaQ0NZ7l7b4w4gGS 08Kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4DxQr1Le2uQ9JFWNHS1BtprNByUwU/r2sqyQrIszh0B256TcpK m7t019dyNZvqF8M4TgOrcxT4n0WLEux6AuTc5GDEUw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYiptRg7D/NabMo4J7xwFt+nNIaVI4SbTG909nk/t8dd+LtoaCmVAWa5g1H6qrdolGf10rR3Sv64ut4Zwyzm9k=
X-Received: by 10.37.20.193 with SMTP id 184mr10593763ybu.400.1510791389862; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:16:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <m1eEHPS-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <59B0BEC0-D791-4D75-906C-84C5E423291B@employees.org> <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com> <5D9D33A8-88F0-4758-84FA-BCB364E8013F@employees.org> <16B61573-E233-40ED-8A22-CD145EBB8F98@google.com> <6cb115a1-dec8-f31c-2865-7aca032bc771@gmail.com> <022434F4-43DD-4455-90C2-C7774EF19B23@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <022434F4-43DD-4455-90C2-C7774EF19B23@google.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:16:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQwQwVbS4AobGyQzuyOPr2u2skDxS4gVKmi2vRL4Avc+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e72b61f617f055e0e88e3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tDwOxJTs98YGbJ_OiRVDbBa66QA>
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:16:33 -0000

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:13 PM james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2017, at 15:36, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
> On 16/11/2017 12:04, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 13:47, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>; wrote:
>
>
> IMHO the optimal solution is:
> - the network SHOULD provide a host with NAT64 prefix information in RA;
>
>
> Disagree. If the network has NAT64, then it should deploy RFC 7225. Ye
> gods, this is the very last thing that should be jammed into RA messages.
>
>
> Do we really want PCP in IPv6?
>
>
> If we have any kind of NAT, then we need PCP. Using NAT without PCP
> considered harmful. That goes for NAT64 and NAT66.
>
>
> I have a more practical view. We can't assume that IPv6 hosts
> grok DHCPv6, and we can't assume they grok PCP. We know that they
> grok RAs, although of course they need an update to grok a new
> option.
>
>
> Simplifying... hosts need an update, and the question we have had on the
> table for four years now is what update to push. What if answers were
> something people wanted to read?
>
> So it seems to me that there isn't much doubt about the
> need for an RA based solution.
>
>
> It seems to me that, of the various solutions analyzed by RFC 7051, that
> particular one comes with a raft of problems, which were the reasons we
> have RFC 7225 now.
>
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7051#section-5.7>
>
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>
>
I may be missing the point, but we talking about updating host (5 year time
horizon) to solve the corresponding node not supporting ipv6?

Maybe we just need to cite this more and do nothing more

https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp177

In short, to be on the internet you need to support ipv6.

What problem does this not solve ?



>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>