Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Wed, 15 November 2017 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 8E67B127005 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:07:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 CGV-Mh9XYjkf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x234.google.com (mail-pg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::234]) (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 1B26C126CBF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id s11so13218918pgc.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:07:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7E/lsS1RJ+qGLU3QegEeqNkjKTov+h8odEx3KXAzgwg=; b=ifddOkDTfZU14pKq5le7gRDkV3LHBMcfesAzdB/yt//iFpYNE1jmUew2Y5m2iy1Pub zsGtYUsuH8f1wHy/1ZamhS8kEt8SiCYf+T+tJAxbQAr5v1hlt8LpclhYdA6Bwob3qSMc zGGh8hsFRTdGOUWZnPefppQzzKDnUFfuuvCiH4yWouCaZcWwh/whWAmtJTDeIjcSiSg7 u7l6EGcH31oDEwrizFPLjZ1x3qyIgnBlEUvIizwnY5w6m+9rjuNk+qgRZ27xNxqV6rXe WQhH7uPB+JedYJy1agAZZ8npZNXO7Jh/oY+JYYrl34JtekTceR75T4N34r6MxIyqaxGa dedw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7E/lsS1RJ+qGLU3QegEeqNkjKTov+h8odEx3KXAzgwg=; b=knEZUK8AyHohY75n6JwRr1J1tNroWLk/nNJ5OwHZDb98q4opW7Ke6WOh7MVFSG5umo TgrZ+c+Bh8aW4xld7BfBMtbSVaF2scODAI6dxG95x+ugIGJKWvXydcM/PGg3qmNFbCyW Sm91XbmJgqf2bHzsiZbJDK0iMmCFpSmDZsQ/XLu+6jfSJnvPthUpfiqF3vmI/J8ZdXo1 x4Gsa686KXN5xkrPGu27oyCXhib0dqW8VnbOM2P5+kT3iDfDYo5lNpixR6uCQtLNhCt9 l2VIbBhjp9iLknPkVljD0ZM6SiEU/BUYWHtf4zLJ8aE/RsP954Qf/jpT6mK/Yq7TXLbY fTBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6rGxzYpLEXuEdun4dMSOKWAaE5+xh3SPonypzVwqnUDs6Eno8Y L2Q1OB7yvAZQM+zFah0tp+6aTg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ5py6Sg0BFXsj1D8cXafMyUVta0e6tAlz5dR7ij5RG+QFhyHzy+iV++kH53F9y9gWnC1jOfA==
X-Received: by 10.98.94.194 with SMTP id s185mr18838789pfb.56.1510772870453; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::10e7:10:788d:282:9de1:e7b9? ([2620:0:10e7:10:788d:282:9de1:e7b9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d15sm43402932pfj.163.2017.11.15.11.07.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:07:49 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0637C46E-B471-4114-B141-FFAA4C250913"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:07:53 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tnIwC4l9VQjRuaLAgXSddWx79q4>
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:07:52 -0000

On Nov 14, 2017, at 19:05, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>; 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.

>  (I do not believe that information needs to be duplicated in DHCP at all)

Totally agree about that.

--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>