IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Sat, 18 November 2017 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@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 231D6126DFF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:22:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 YYYa5bDs_QvE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (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 709FB12421A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id k66so5167608lfg.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:22:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JzhOGhFa7U6HhVJEufI9hjksNING5wTg/rOhY9cNdWY=; b=JDqMlYiyF8w5geYpf2+BftNS82WGAb7ph5t1BdZ5FUbLJco2xIYKTc1QVU3C90AcQf 582uuVGuHfax9eFlq4kUafxTgwV4z5AyNZHVlPN2gaQ0yYG6n+9u3WEWC6foEt3bFaa9 8lTe3dzW+uj6w+CQ3QCRE7VsJDJuEFQ+QUiqk0Uq+urzQJrtqVBWpEs8NedDllooUrJt pIcGNMUHVnD3726Qqww/skK02pRhYfT/AACk+r1ahpjmbRfqVaT306IHRd+Gta4mvyFt +0jIiTOJ1FWkjqTDgRLylzQs3WlJ+PuhZIlwdBRUYEDA65k2f/lB1y8D2SUCaG/GcIcI aFFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JzhOGhFa7U6HhVJEufI9hjksNING5wTg/rOhY9cNdWY=; b=Ck6AbUjTSHtej7ZMEqWaapLcb17V5U6reyY8o+iMgFa6KM5L0KJ/e0KsgheIOgMSEw MLWlnWlC6dpYk3vQJtjTIpFPAjvCKwbxXKuepZZZWYM38g3lUqM/23RiZQE8LIhxflqT 8JUw9onlLZ/7z/uqFzeHcqetV42j9HyGlYGYEGadEsTiJX/Iw3Dxcab22HZ1iT8mRcnJ cE7jwlmbdUO3Md047PHdZp6GjzKuk+PScJaoWgECxL+MUHr/+ABdjaU16UfF66gcrRPB dmamEvqJ6QjzfDWNjZmwagzImGKq8CVHUION5jo1BoMMeka7yQBBHVxjG39NlSKmrh46 Hsbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4nJ86c4YJ4mIVunxtlTNamcsBi/zyDdn2jWeFJLKhsKFnl5gmC QzNGTqW+XiQJGrGzWaLIeirNrHuNGuFrIgQ9gzs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZIgsqCpX37OMnVfT38bUZ4jUuzloTHwLKAhd/P+vXEVnj0oUdhPywQ+x9tcG+PzaBO+V/g7rOtH+wOGb07IRQ=
X-Received: by 10.25.109.6 with SMTP id i6mr1765102lfc.73.1510996965490; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:22:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.205.2 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:22:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.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> <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:22:24 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BARaJHKOyrD1KAeorbYQwgsmxBLk1QELH+wZ4=HDCP1q-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xudSv0MdwrQBAGsoQ-ymT8FxgCM>
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: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 09:22:49 -0000

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:07 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.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.

Even if does not deploy it for NAT44? Do we really want to make NAT64
deployments more complicated than
just replacing NAT44 with NAT64? ;)

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email