Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>